FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Afghanistan

Michael Moore: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions she has had with her NATO counterparts on the situation in Afghanistan; and what requests have been made for additional support from NATO allies for the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan.

Kim Howells: holding answer 13 September 2006
	My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has had regular and wide ranging discussion with colleagues from a number of NATO member states. These discussions have included the situation in Afghanistan. As a NATO-led operation, it is for the Alliance to find collectively the forces the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) needs. As the NATO Secretary-General has said, nations should deliver what they have all agreed ISAF ought to have. Work is of course ongoing to ensure that the necessary capabilities are in place.

Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons

Nick Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether officials from her Department will be seeking agreement on a mandate for future negotiations on cluster munitions at the Review Conference to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons in November.

Ian McCartney: holding answer 18 September 2006
	No. The UK's priority for the 3(rd) Review Conference to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) in November is to finalise a Protocol on Mines Other Than Anti-Personnel Mines (Anti-vehicle mines). We believe that the work on Explosive Remnants of War should continue on the basis of the current mandate. If achieved, progress on these two areas should ensure the continued success of the CCW. On cluster munitions, a recent study commissioned by CCW member states concluded that International Humanitarian Law is adequate.

Falkland Islands

Nick Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government have taken to meet its commitment under article 5 of the Mine Ban treaty to clear minefields in the Falkland Islands by 1 March 2009.

Ian McCartney: holding answer 18 September 2006
	The UK is committed to its obligations under the Ottawa convention (Mine Ban treaty). In 1999 the United Kingdom and Argentine Governments agreed as a confidence-building measure to
	"work together to evaluate the feasibility and cost of clearing the land mines still present in the Falkland Islands".
	This co-operation has been welcomed by other states parties to the treaty. The feasibility study is largely to be funded by Argentina, on the principle that almost all the mines are theirs. Against the background of the sovereignty dispute and the Argentine financial crisis in 2001, the negotiations have been long and complex. After much hard work they resulted in July 2006 in agreement on the modalities for completing a survey of the Falkland Islands and the final report of the feasibility study during the next austral summer. Only when the feasibility study has been completed will we be in a position to decide on the best option available to enable us to meet our Ottawa obligations.

Iraq

Michael Moore: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment she has  (a) made and  (b) received from coalition partners of the likelihood of a civil war in Iraq.

Margaret Beckett: holding answer 18 September 2006
	The potential danger of a slide into civil war in Iraq is something that concerns us all, but while there is a high level of sectarian conflict in the country, civil war is neither imminent nor inevitable. Our coalition partners and the Government of Iraq agree with this assessment.

Iraq

Michael Moore: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment she has made of progress in the political, economic and social conditions in the Iraqi provinces of  (a) Al Basra,  (b) Al Muthanna,  (c) Dhi Qar and  (d) Maysan.

Kim Howells: holding answer 13 September 2006
	Progress is being made on the political, economic and social fronts in the four southern provinces but is inevitably linked to and dependent on progress in security.
	The handover of security responsibility to Iraqi security forces has started in the South, demonstrating Iraq's progress in building up its political institutions, its security capacity and its commitment to economic development and delivery of basic services. Transition to Provincial Iraqi control took place in Al Muthanna on 13 July 2006, and the Governor and elected local authorities in Dhi Qar will take over responsibility for security before the end of this month. The political situation in Maysan has improved, with the Governor and Provincial Council working with the multi-national force to ensure the province is ready to transition as soon as possible.
	In Basra, despite some difficulties in relations with the Governor, co-operation with the Provincial Council and the Governor himself has continued, particularly in building the capacity of the security forces and the civil authorities. We are working with the Iraqi security forces to implement Prime Minister Maliki's Basra Security Plan, led by General Ali Hammadi. The training and mentoring of the Iraqi Police Service remains a priority in Basra with a focus on developing better leadership capacity, Command and Control structures, and specialist skills. The Basra Provincial Reconstruction Team is working with the Basra authorities to develop and implement economic, governance and reconstruction projects. Improved security would help deliver a range of investment, employment and economic opportunities.
	Data on social conditions in Iraq are patchy and often only available at a national level. Major surveys due shortly from the UN and from the World Bank will add to our understanding. However the UK is working closely with the Government of Iraq and international organisations to improve the infrastructure, including electricity and water supply. Further information can be found on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website at: http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename =OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=105 782556187.

Iraq

Michael Moore: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to the answer of 25 July 2006,  Official Report, column 1267W, on Iraq, what further progress has been made by the Joint Committee to transfer security responsibility in Iraq; and what discussions the Government have had with  (a) United States and  (b) Iraqi counterparts on the withdrawal of British troops from Iraq.

Margaret Beckett: holding answer 18 September 2006
	Following the transfer of security of Al Muthanna province to Iraqi control on 13 July, the Joint Committee to Transfer Security Responsibility recommended to the Prime Minister of Iraq and the Iraqi Ministerial Committee on National Security, that the Province of Dhi Qar transfer to Iraqi security responsibility. On 31 August 2006, the Government of Iraq announced that this transfer would go ahead. We expect a formal handover ceremony before the end of this month. The assessment process continues and the committee makes regular recommendations in respect of the transfer of further areas to Iraqi provincial control.
	The UK has regular discussions with all coalition partners in the Multinational Force (MNF), including the US, and meets regularly to discuss all aspects of MNF issues with the Iraqi Government. UK troops will remain in Iraq until the conditions for drawdown are right.

Israel

Nick Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions she has had with the  (a) Israeli Government and  (b) US Administration about the use of (i) cluster munitions and (ii) other weapons, components and military equipment in the (A) recent conflict in Israel and Lebanon and (B) Occupied Territories over the past three months.

Ian McCartney: holding answer 18 September 2006
	My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has not had discussions with the Israeli or US Governments about the use of cluster munitions or other military equipment in Lebanon, Israel or the Occupied Territories. Our embassy in Tel Aviv has recently sought clarification from the Israeli Government about their current policy on the use of cluster munitions. All countries must ensure their usage of all weapons is consistent with International Humanitarian Law.

Sudan

Michael Moore: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions she has had with her  (a) United Nations,  (b) European Union and  (c) United States counterparts on the situation in Darfur; what assistance the UK has offered in support of the implementation of United Nations Security Council resolution 1706; what representations she has made to the Sudanese authorities on accepting resolution 1706; and if she will make a statement.

Margaret Beckett: holding answer 13 September 2006
	The UK played a leading role in the UN Security Council's decision to adopt UN Security Council resolution (UNSCR) 1706 on 31 August. A UK military officer has been seconded to the UN Secretariat to assist in planning for the deployment of a UN force. My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Lord Triesman of Tottenham, has spoken to the Sudanese Foreign Minister and publicly called on the Sudanese Government to accept UNSCR 1706. Both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development and our ambassador in Khartoum have met with representatives from the Sudanese Government to press them to accept a UN force for Darfur. We have discussed the situation in Darfur with other members of the Security Council, the EU, the African Union, the Arab League and other key international actors, and urge all those with influence over the Sudanese Government to help persuade Khartoum to accept UNSCR 1706. I raised this personally with the Egyptian Government and the Secretary-General of the Arab League during my recent visit to Cairo.

UN Small Arms & Light Weapons Review Conference

Nick Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions she has had with representatives from the Canadian Government regarding an inter-sessional meeting of states next year following this year's UN Small Arms and Light Weapons Review conference.

Kim Howells: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has had no discussion with the Canadian Government about their proposal for an informal inter-sessional meeting of states next year on Small Arms and Light Weapons transfer controls. However, we are ready to consider proposals that strengthen implementation of the UN Programme of Action.

HEALTH

Civil Servants

John Mann: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many civil servants are employed by the Department  (a) in and  (b) outside London.

Ivan Lewis: The information requested is shown in the following table, as at 1 April 2005.
	
		
			  Full-time equivalent 
			   Number 
			 London 1,460 
			 Outside 840

Road Accidents (Compensation)

David Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money was recovered by hospitals from insurers towards the cost of treatment of persons injured in road accidents in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available.

Rosie Winterton: pursuant to the reply, 24 July 2006, Official Report, c. 1122W
	I regret the costs of providing treatment to victims of road traffic accidents recovered in 2005-06 given in my previous reply is incorrect. It should read £121,500,568 not £121,500.
	 Letter from Rosie Winterton, dated 23 September 2006:
	I regret that the information in my reply to your Parliamentary Question on 24 July 2006 (UIN 83767) about the costs of providing treatment to victims of road traffic accidents (Official Report Volume 449 Column 1122W - copy attached) was incorrect. This was due to an administrative error.
	The table in the answer indicated that the amount recovered for the cost of providing treatment to victims of road traffic accidents for 2005-06 was £121,500. This figure should read £121,500,568.
	I attach the correct table and am arranging for the Official Report to be amended.
	I apologise for the inconvenience caused.
	
		
			   Amount recovered (£) 
			 1999-2000 30,046,572 
			 2000-01 75,847,629 
			 2001-02 98,278,603 
			 2002-03 105,025,336 
			 2003-04 105,654,936 
			 2004-05 117,504,738 
			 2005-06 121,500,568

Sexually Transmitted Diseases

Andrew Lansley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of  (a) HIV,  (b) chlamydia,  (c) gonorrhoea,  (d) syphilis,  (e) genital warts and  (f) genital herpes there have been in England in each year since 1979.

Ivan Lewis: holding answer September 2006
	The number of cases of chlamydia, gonorrhoea, syphilis, genital warts and genital herpes diagnosed in genitourinary medicine (GUM) clinics in England from 1979 to 2005, are shown in table one. The numbers of individuals newly diagnosed with HIV in England, by year of diagnosis, are shown in table two. HIV diagnoses include those made in GUM clinics as well as other settings such as infectious disease units and general practice. The following documents have also been placed in the Library:
	Communicable Disease Report: Sexually transmitted diseases in England and Wales: 1981-1990;
	Trends in sexually transmitted infections in the United Kingdom 1990-1999: New episodes seen at genitourinary medicine clinics; and
	Sexually Transmitted Infections in the UK: New episodes seen at Genitourinary Medicine Clinics 1991-2001.
	
		
			  Table 1: Number of diagnoses for selected conditions made at genitourinary medicine (GUM) clinics in England; 1979-2005 
			   Condition 
			   Syphilis( 1)  Gonorrhoea  Chlamydia( 2)  Herpes( 3)  Warts( 3) 
			 1979 *2,488 54,466 — — — 
			 1980 *2,512 53,783 — — — 
			 1981 *2,279 51,663 — — — 
			 1982 *2,145 51,615 — — — 
			 1983 *1,934 47,911 — — — 
			 1984 *1,702 47,168 — — — 
			 1985 *1,229 45,849 — — — 
			 1986 *887 40,319 — — — 
			 1987 *589 25,254 — — — 
			 1988 *397 17,062 30,145 11,273 52,063 
			 1989 *391 17,694 30,446 12,403 50,954 
			 1990 *335 17,054 30,364 12,547 49,517 
			 1991 *348 16,483 30,504 13,274 52,674 
			 1992 *338 12,369 28,554 14,017 51,124 
			 1993 *337 9,926 26,381 14,621 48,893 
			 1994 *304 9,644 27,698 15,347 49,052 
			 1995 132 9,962 29,286 15,044 51,289 
			 1996 116 11,929 32,521 15,192 54,652 
			 1997 147 12,399 38,839 15,079 58,711 
			 1998 131 12,535 43,912 15,815 59,681 
			 1999 211 15,549 50,960 15,880 61,157 
			 2000 322 20,494 61,370 16,147 60,661 
			 2001 717 22,398 68,180 17,054 62,423 
			 2002 1,196 24,357 78,117 17,510 63,938 
			 2003 1,532 23,489 85,399 17,127 65,185 
			 2004 2,033 20,779 92,948 16,952 68,217 
			 2005 2,578 17,880 96,204 17,589 68,824 
			 (1) Data for 1979 to 1994, marked with * are for primary, secondary and early latent syphilis and cannot be separated. From 1995, data are for primary and secondary syphilis only. (2) Data for chlamydia is available from 1988 onwards. Prior to 1988, chlamydia was recorded as part of the non-specific genital infections (3) The numbers for genital warts and herpes infections from 1988 are for first attack cases. Prior to 1988 data was collected for first attack and recurrent cases together.  Source: Health Protection Agency, 1979 to 1987: SBH60 return, 1988 to 2005: KC60 return 
		
	
	
		
			  Table 2: Individuals newly diagnosed with HIV in England by year of diagnosis 
			   Number 
			 1990(1) 14,934 
			 1991 2,496 
			 1992 2,550 
			 1993 2,406 
			 1994 2,363 
			 1995 2,449 
			 1996 2,489 
			 1997 2,536 
			 1998 2,642 
			 1999 2,933 
			 2000 3,643 
			 2001 4,807 
			 2002 5,900 
			 2003 6,853 
			 2004 6,964 
			 2005(2) 6,682 
			 Total 72,647 
			 (1) Up to 1990. Due to an increased likelihood of inaccuracy in reporting of year of first UK HIV diagnoses during the early years of surveillance, data prior to 1991 are presented cumulatively. (2) Data are based on reports received by the end of June 2006 and numbers may rise as further reports are received.  Note: Data includes duplicates for the same individual where records with different information could not be reconciled.  Source: Health Protection Agency

Vaccines (Sleeping Contracts)

Andrew Lansley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made on the placing of sleeping contracts for vaccines for use in the event of an influenza pandemic since her Department's chief medical officer issued tenders for the sleeping contracts on 19 October 2005.

Rosie Winterton: holding answer 18 September 2006
	Considerable progress has been made on the subject of sleeping contracts, and the Department is still within the time available to us. Under the procurement directives, before negotiations are required to be completed.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

Official Visits

David Simpson: To ask the Minister for Women and Equality on how many occasions she has visited each region in an official capacity in the last 12 months.

Meg Munn: Since being appointed in May 2006 the Minister for Women and Equality has visited Yorkshire and the Humber once, the east of England once and the south west once.

COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Arm's Length Management Organisations

Daniel Rogerson: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how much of each of the grants for arm's length management organisations has been spent.

Yvette Cooper: Funding under the arm's length management organisation (ALMO) programme is allocated in the form of borrowing approvals to enable local authorities to bring their housing stock up to the decent homes standard. This funding is additional to the local authority's existing resources and is allocated in two year tranches. An ALMO must attain a 2* inspection rating from the Housing Inspectorate in order to qualify for funding.
	Since 2001 there have been five bidding rounds for ALMO funding. Funding is confirmed in two year tranches. Most ALMOs accepted onto the first bidding round have received and spent all their allocations. ALMOs on subsequent bidding rounds have yet to receive all their allocations. ALMOs on the most recent bidding round are not yet in receipt of funding as they have hitherto not been inspected by the Housing Inspectorate.
	The following table sets out how much ALMO funding each ALMO has spent up to the end of the last financial year and total funding confirmed to date.
	
		
			  Arms length management of local authority housing 
			  £ 
			  Authority  Total spend to March 2006  Funding confirmed to March 2006 
			 Ashfield 55,320,000 55,320,000 
			 Derby 97,176,000 97,176,000 
			 Hounslow 99,650,000 99,650,000 
			 Rochdale 106,300,000 106,300,000 
			 Stockton 63,000,000 63,000,000 
			 Westminster 74,000,000 74,000,000 
			 Wigan 137,300,000 137,300,000 
			 Total 632,746,000 632,746,000 
		
	
	
		
			  £ 
			  Authority  Total spend to March 2006  Funding confirmed to March 2007 
			 Kirklees 140,351,274 149,800,000 
			 Barnsley 114,220,283 141,600,000 
			 Blyth Valley 31,429,000 48,358,000 
			 Bolton 92,762,000 132,523,000 
			 Brent 67,997,000 67,997,000 
			 Carrick 15,160,000 23,060,000 
			 Cheltenham 22,500,000 31,440,000 
			 Colchester 24,605,000 35,710,000 
			 Hillingdon 32,259,000 48,000,000 
			 Kensington and Chelsea 33,644,000 43,439,000 
			 Leeds—East 28,951,123 46,782,049 
			 Leeds—North East 21,463,000 33,085,000 
			 Leeds—North West 24,117,000 44,117,000 
			 Leeds—South East 21,929,000 32,539,000 
			 Leeds—South 42,081,000 67,583,000 
			 Leeds—West 37,855,000 58,158,000 
			 Oldham 61,200,000 86,400,000 
			 Total 812,523,680 1,090,591,049 
		
	
	
		
			  £ 
			  Authority  Total spend to March 2006  Funding confirmed to March 2008 
			 Barnet 19,099,200 48,783,400 
			 Easington — 26,200,300 
			 Gateshead 13,000,000 104,140,000 
			 High Peak 4,700,000 9,306,000 
			 Islington 24,900,000 84,523,200 
			 Newcastle 84,000,000 190,820,000 
			 Poole 8,686,850 23,792,120 
			 Sheffield 96,361,000 211,851,060 
			 Solihull 20,600,000 50,245,000 
			 South Lakeland 3,450,000 14,132,000 
			 Warrington 18,278,000 30,200,680 
			 Total 293,075,050 793,993,760 
		
	
	
		
			  £ 
			  Authority  Total spend to March 2006  Funding confirmed to March 2007 
			 Bassetlaw — 12,500,000 
			 Bury 2,120,000 8,640,000 
			 Ealing 20,448,000 63,548,000 
			 Eastbourne — 3,000,000 
			 Hammersmith and Fulham 21,938,000 66,347,000 
			 Manchester — 17,570,000 
			 Newark and Sherwood 6,500,000 15,500,000 
			 Nottingham — 13,000,000 
			 Rotherham 7,500,000 52,500,000 
			 Sandwell 8,800,000 62,600,000 
			 Slough — 3,101,000 
			 Wolverhampton — 42,200,000 
			 Total 67,306,000 360,506,000 
		
	
	
		
			  £ 
			  Authority  Total spend to March 2006  Funding confirmed to March 2008 
			 Doncaster — 72,671,000 
			 Gloucester — 19,323,000 
			 Hackney — 88,980,000 
			 Lambeth (part) — 8,589,000 
			 Newham — 78,113,000 
			 Sheffield (part) — 67,513,000 
			 South Tyneside — 55,812,000 
			 Southend — 22,073,000 
			 Stockport — 40,360,000 
			 Wear Valley — 11,817,000 
			 Total — 465,251,000 
			 Programme total 1,805,650,730 3,343,087,809

Brownfield Sites (London)

Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how many brownfield sites there are in each London borough.

Yvette Cooper: The information requested is not available centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The National Land Use Database of Previously-Developed Land provides estimates of total amounts of previously-developed land. The local authorities which provide the data make an allowance for small sites but these are not recorded individually, so that it is not possible to give an estimate of the total number of sites.

Business Rates

Andrew George: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how many  (a) second and  (b) holiday homes were liable for business rates in each collecting local authority area in (i) 1995, (ii) 2000, (iii) 2005 and (iv) 2006.

Phil Woolas: I have placed in the Library of the House a table showing the number of properties in the rating lists described as "self catering holiday accommodation" at March each year from 2000 to 2005. Equivalent data for the period before 2000 are not readily available and figures for 2006 are not yet available.

Empty Dwellings

Caroline Spelman: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what advice her Department has taken on whether Empty Dwelling Management Orders would breach Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Yvette Cooper: During the drafting of all legislation the Government has available to it legal resources and the Housing Bill was no different. The Bill was scrutinised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the appendix to that Committee's 20th report published on 20 October 2004 contains a memorandum at appendix 2a from the right hon. Lord Rooker in which he explains how the Government consider the provisions on empty dwelling management orders are consistent with the European Convention on Human Rights, and in particular, to Article 1 of the First Protocol and to Article 6. The Government are satisfied that the provisions on empty dwelling management orders are fully compatible with the Convention. A statement as to compatibility was made in both Houses and the Government's view has not changed.

Euro-preparation Group

Eric Pickles: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government if she will place in the Library a copy of the minutes of the local authorities' euro preparation group of 21 February 2006.

Phil Woolas: The meeting of the local authorities' euro preparation group held on 21 February 2006 was a private meeting arranged jointly by HM Treasury and the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy's (CIPFA) Euro Advisory Service. The minutes are only available to the attendees and the local authority subscribers to the CIPFA Euro Advisory Service.

High Bickington Community Property Trust

Geoffrey Cox: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what account she took of the Government's declared aim in respect of affordable housing in rejecting the application of High Bickington Community Property Trust for consent to build affordable homes in that village.

Yvette Cooper: The Secretary of State's decision letter of 9 May sets out in detail the reasoning behind the decision. I know that the hon. Member already has a copy of this letter—I have also placed a copy in the House Libraries. Now that this decision has been issued, the Secretary of State has no further jurisdiction in the matter and it would not be appropriate to comment further on the particular merits of the proposal.

Home Information Packs

Caroline Spelman: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what the penalty will be for marketing a home without a home information pack.

Yvette Cooper: Where enforcement officers decide to take action following a breach of the home information pack duties, they will have the option of serving a penalty charge notice. The penalty charge is set at £200 in the Home Information Pack Regulations 2006 and could be repeated for an on-going breach. Where the breach is committed by an estate agent, the case could be referred to the Office of Fair Trading (OFT). The OFT may then consider using existing powers to issue a banning order requiring the agent to cease trading and we regard this as the main deterrent.

Home Information Packs

Caroline Spelman: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what assessment the Government has made of the cost of a Home Condition Report in London for a  (a) three bedroom semi-detached house,  (b) two bedroom flat and  (c) four bedroom house (i) including and (ii) excluding VAT.

Yvette Cooper: The Home Condition Report (HCR) is similar to the existing mid-range survey on the market, The Homebuyers Survey and Valuation. In the current market these cost £400 on average (or £484.85 including VAT). The cost of the HCR will be determined by the market and this will depend, as now, on the size, condition and location of the property. However, we expect competition will push prices down. One provider has said they intend to provide Home Information Packs, including the Home condition Report, free of charge.

Housing

Michael Gove: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government if she will take steps to ensure high aesthetic standards in new housing developments; and what discussions she had with the Commission on Architecture and the Built Environment on this issue.

Yvette Cooper: The Government have taken a number of steps to raise design standards, including for new housing developments. Planning policy and guidance has been strengthened to require good design. This has been backed by additional work to encourage innovation, to provide capacity building and support and to promote the take-up of good practice. We are now looking to see better delivery at the local level.
	Our policy in "Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development" (PPS1) sets out general principles and policies for planning, and makes it clear that good design is indivisible from good planning. PPS1 needs to be taken into account by all planning authorities in the preparation of development plans and it may also be material to decisions on individual planning applications. The policy is supported by good practice guidance such as "By Design—better places to live and Safer Places—the Planning System and Crime Prevention". We have also tested out new tools to help deliver quality developments, including piloting the use of Design Coding.
	On 12 April 2006 I also announced additional measures to encourage good design. Most types of planning application will now have to be accompanied by a design and access statement. This will explain how high quality design and issues such as disabled access have been addressed in the proposal and more importantly help local planning authorities ensure new developments are of a high quality. This will give local communities a greater understanding of what is proposed, what might eventually be built and therefore a greater opportunity to contribute to the planning process.
	The Government are also promoting innovation through a series of schemes, such as the Millennium Communities programme and the Design for Manufacture competition which has resulted in practical lessons for the house-building industry, including how to reduce construction costs while retaining high standards of quality as well as how to build houses at a high density. The competition also suggests further opportunities to cut costs and improve design for social housing, making it possible to build more homes.
	Work continues to provide support and reward success, particularly through spreading of best practice and improving design skills. The Government support the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE). Their work to promote the adoption of design champions within local authorities and at a senior level within the mass house builders, the design training programmes which they deliver, and their advice on specific development proposals are all making an important contribution to raising standards. The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) Housing Design Awards recognises those partnerships that have delivered exemplary housing developments, large and small.
	To overcome skills barriers, the Government have recently established a new Academy for Sustainable Communities. This is working with others to deliver the cutting edge skills and knowledge to make better places for people now and in the future.
	CABE is the Government's advisor and champion for improving urban design, and therefore DCLG Ministers and officials meet with CABE for a variety of reasons. I hosted a seminar in February 2006 to discuss improving housing design quality, where CABE presented the findings of their recent Housing Audits. CABE are also closely involved in the development of the Thames Gateway Strategic Framework and presented progress on their work at a meeting I chaired on 13 July 2006.

Housing

Andrew Love: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government pursuant to the answer of 30 March 2006,  Official Report, column 1214W, on housing, if she will list the funding streams contributing to the figure of £4.1 billion spent on housing capital investment in 2004-05.

Yvette Cooper: The £4.1 billion includes funding for: Arms Length Management Organisations, Disabled Facilities Grant, Major Repairs Allowance, Private Sector Housing Renewal, Local Authority Supported Capital Expenditure, Local Authority Capital Grants, Estate Action, Housing Action Trusts, Gap Funding, Housing Market Renewal Pathfinders and the Housing Corporation's Affordable Housing Programme.

Housing

Joan Ruddock: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government 
	(1)  how many households were registered homeless in  (a) Lewisham, Deptford constituency and  (b) Lewisham borough in 1997; and how many households are registered homeless in (i) Lewisham, Deptford constituency and (ii) Lewisham borough;
	(2)  how many households were in temporary accommodation in 1997 in  (a) Lewisham, Deptford constituency and  (b) Lewisham borough; and how many households are currently in temporary accommodation in (i) Lewisham, Deptford constituency and (ii) Lewisham borough;
	(3)  how many individuals are sleeping rough in  (a) Lewisham, Deptford constituency and  (b) Lewisham borough.

Yvette Cooper: Information about local authorities' actions under homelessness legislation is collected quarterly, at local authority level. The constituency of Lewisham, Deptford is wholly contained within the London borough of Lewisham.
	Only partial information was reported by Lewisham during 1997-98. The number of households reported as eligible for assistance, unintentionally homeless and in priority need between 1998-99, and 2005-06, along with the reported number of households in temporary accommodation arranged by the council under homelessness legislation as the end of those years, is tabled as follows.
	Information is also collected on the number of people who sleep rough—that is, those who are literally roofless on a single night. No count was undertaken by Lewisham prior to 1999, but figures for June 1999 and the latest available figures, for 2005, are also presented in the table.
	The duty owed to a person accepted as eligible for assistance, unintentionally homeless and in priority need is to secure suitable accommodation. If a settled home is not immediately available, the authority may secure temporary accommodation until a settled home becomes available. As an alternative to the provision of temporary accommodation some authorities arrange for households to remain in their current accommodation (homeless at home), until a settled solution becomes available.
	
		
			  Households accepted as homeless during the quarter, and households in temporary accommodation at the end of the quarter, in the London borough of Lewisham 
			   Accepted as homeless( 1)  In temporary accommodation( 2)  Rough  sleeping (persons)( 3) 
			 1998-99 1,085 613 Not available 
			 1999-2000 1,248 775 (4)2 
			 2000-01 Not complete Not available (5)6 
			 2001-02 1,102 Not available (6)3 
			 2002-03 1,170 1,243 (7)1 
			 2003-04 1,502 1,640 (8)0 
			 2004-05 1,245 1,847 (8)0 
			 2005-06 1,097 2,284 (9)3 
			 (1) All households eligible under homelessness legislation, found to be unintentionally homeless and in a priority need category, and consequently owed a main homelessness duty. (2) Households in accommodation at the end of the year (March) either pending a decision on their homelessness application or awaiting allocation of a settled home following acceptance. Excludes those households designated as "homeless at home" that have remained in their existing accommodation and have the same rights to suitable alternative accommodation as those in accommodation arranged by the authority. (3) Number of persons sleeping rough are based on local authority counts during the year and presented as a mid-year estimate. If no count takes place during the year an estimate is given by the local authority. (4 )Mid-year 1999. (5) Mid-year 2000. (6) Mid-year 2001. (7) Mid-year 2002. (8 )Estimate. (9) Mid-year 2005.  Source: DCLG P1E Homelessness (quarterly) and HSSA (annual)  returns.

Housing

David Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how much was allocated per head of population by the Housing Corporation to  (a) Yeovil constituency,  (b) Somerset and  (c) the south west in the last period for which figures are available.

Yvette Cooper: The table shows the funding per head based on allocations through the Housing Corporation's Affordable Housing programme for 2006 to 2008 in relation to 2004 mid year population estimates for the south west region and Somerset from the Office of National Statistics. Allocating within regions follow the recommendations of the Regional Housing Board as well as reflecting the quality of bids which come in from individual areas.
	
		
			  Region  2004 mid year  population estimates (ONS)  Affordable housing programme allocated funding 2006 to 2008  (£ million)  Funding per head (£) 
			 South West 5,038,000 281 55.78 
			 Somerset(1) 512,500 20.8 40.51 
			 (1) Somerset includes Mendip district council, Sedgemoor district council, South Somerset district council, Taunton Deane borough council and West Somerset district council. 
		
	
	Information is not available at constituency level.

Housing

Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how many psychiatric patients have been discharged from hospital into  (a) temporary accommodation and  (b) council housing in each London borough in each of the last five years.

Yvette Cooper: Although psychiatric patients should not be discharged as homeless, some may nevertheless self-discharge and not have accommodation available to them. People may be discharged to temporary accommodation as part of a plan agreed between mental health services and housing departments, but this is not recorded as part of routine monitoring,
	Information collected by my Department about households accepted by local authorities as unintentionally homeless and in a priority need group identifies those where the applicant or a household member was vulnerable as a result of mental illness or disability. National results for years since 1997 are presented in table 4 of the quarterly Statistical Release on homelessness, first quarter of 2006, published on 12 June. However, information on the number of these who had been former psychiatric patients, and whether they were subsequently allocated temporary accommodation or a settled tenancy, is not available centrally.

Housing

Andrew George: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government when she plans to respond to the recommendations of the Affordable Rural Housing Commission.

Yvette Cooper: holding answer 13 September 2006
	The Government are already taking forward many of the recommendations of the Affordable Rural Housing Commission. Its proposals are being fed into a series of progress of work including the Comprehensive Spending Review and the forthcoming planning policy statement on housing. We will also shortly be setting up a website on which we will post progress we are making towards improving access to affordable housing in rural areas and examples of best practice in the light of the Affordable Rural Housing Commissions report.

Housing

Hugh Bayley: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much the Government has spent on building social housing; and how many new social housing units were completed in each of the last 20 years.

Yvette Cooper: I have been asked to reply.
	Government capital provision through local authorities and the Housing Corporation for both new and existing housing since 1986 is as follows:
	
		
			   £ million 
			 1986-87 2,296 
			 1987-88 2,327 
			 1888-89 2,252 
			 1989-90 2,330 
			 1990-91 3,031 
			 1991-92 3,708 
			 1992-93 4,267 
			 1993-94 3,765 
			 1994-95 3,169 
			 1995-96 2,720 
			 1996-97 2,432 
			 1997-98 1,894 
			 1998-99 2,098 
			 1999-2000 2,173 
			 2000-01 2,866 
			 2001-02 3,312 
			 2002-03 3,598 
			 2003-04 4,685 
			 2004-05 4,767 
			 2005-06 5,213 
			 2006-07 5,266 
			 2007-08 5,628 
		
	
	Of this, expenditure through the Housing Corporation's Approved Development Programme on the provision of social rented housing is shown in the following table:
	
		
			  Expenditure on Social Rent Provision 
			   £ million 
			 1992-93 1,492 
			 1993-94 1,395 
			 1994-95 1,106 
			 1995-96 819 
			 1996-97 707 
			 1997-98 458 
			 1998-99 451 
			 1999-2000 525 
			 2000-01 577 
			 2001-02 647 
			 2002-03 762 
			 2003-04 1,175 
			 2004-05 1,045 
			 2005-06 (provisional) 933 
			 2006-08 (estimate) 2,684 
			  Source: Housing Corporation. 
		
	
	Expenditure on social rent provision includes both new build and additions to the stock which are acquired and refurbished. Information is not available prior to 1992-93.
	Information on the provision to local authorities cannot be sub-divided between new supply and other support for housing.
	For the number of social housing units made available I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Yeovil, on 21 March 2006,  Official Report, column 279W (Mr. Laws).

Housing

Hugh Bayley: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much has been spent on building new social housing for rent in each year since 1990.

Yvette Cooper: I have been asked to reply.
	I refer the hon. Member to the answer to PQ no. 62115.

Sustainable Communities Conference

Caroline Spelman: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what the budgeted total cost to public funds was of the 2007 Sustainable Communities Conference.

Yvette Cooper: The 2007 Sustainable Communities Summit was planned as a self funding event. Forecast expenditures and revenues were both £4.3 million. Expenditures were to be recouped through exhibitor and sponsorship revenues and delegate fees.

Sustainable Communities Conference

James Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how many units of affordable housing were provided in rural areas in each year since 1997.

Yvette Cooper: The numbers of units of affordable housing provided to rural areas in each financial year since 1997-98 are in the table. Affordable housing supply data is available at local authority level therefore it is only possible to measure how many dwellings have been built in local authorities classified as rural using the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) rural definitions. This will include dwellings built in towns that are within a local authority classified as rural, but will not include dwellings built in small towns or villages within local authorities classified as urban.
	
		
			  Affordable dwellings provided in rural areas( 1) 
			   Number 
			 1997-98 14,466 
			 1998-99 13,100 
			 1999-2000 11,459 
			 2000-01 11,259 
			 2001-02 10,923 
			 2002-03 11,056 
			 2003-04 12,206 
			 2004-05 11,901 
			 (1) Figures prior to 2000-01 exclude dwellings provided solely through Section 106 'planning' agreements.  Source:  Housing Corporation, returns from local authorities to the Department for Communities and Local Government (HSSA and P2). 
		
	
	For further information on the DEFRA Rural Definition and Local Authority Classification please see: http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/rural_resd/rural_ definition.asp

Land Classification

Christopher Huhne: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what estimate she has made of the  (a) number and  (b) area of sites designated as derelict land, broken down by region; and what the figures were (i) five and (ii) 10 years ago.

Yvette Cooper: The information available is from the National Land Use Database of Previously-Developed Land, which was carried out on an experimental basis in 1998 and annually from 2001. The estimates of area are shown in the following table. The local authorities which provide the data make an allowance for small sites but these are not recorded individually, so that it is not possible to give an estimate of the total number of sites.
	
		
			  Trends in amounts of derelict land and buildings 
			  hectares 
			   1998  2001  2002  2003  2004 
			 North East 1,660 1,860 1,630 1,520 1,430 
			 North West 3,400 5,690 5,610 5,700 5,690 
			 Yorkshire and the Humber 3,850 3,720 3,270 3,160 2,960 
			 East Midlands 2,330 2,070 2,470 1,950 2,040 
			 West Midlands 1,560 1,640 1,710 1,730 1,840 
			   
			 East of England 2,460 2,610 1,740 2,420 2,310 
			 London 530 630 460 370 290 
			 South East 1,310 1,310 1,430 1,440 1,410 
			 South West 2,240 1,870 1,630 2,250 1,900 
			   
			 England 19,340 21,410 19,960 20,550 19,870 
			  Source: National Land Use Database of Previously-Developed Land

Land Classification

James Duddridge: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how much land was designated as  (a) brownfield and  (b) greenfield site in (i) Rochford district council area, (ii) Southend-on-Sea borough council and (iii) Rochford and Southend East constituency in each year since 1997.

Yvette Cooper: Information on amounts of brownfield land in each local authority is available from the National Land Use Database of Previously-Developed Land. There were data collections in 1998 and annually from 2001. The amounts of land reported by the local authorities are shown in the table attached. Information for the constituency, which cuts across local authority boundaries, is not available except at disproportionate cost. Information on greenfield land available for development is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
	
		
			  Amount of brownfield land by land type: Southend-on-Sea and Rochford 1998, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 
			  hectares 
			  Land/building type  1998( 1)  2001  2002  2003  2004 
			  Rochford  
			 Vacant and derelict land and buildings 13 (2)— 19 16 16 
			 Currently in use with potential for redevelopment 2 (2)— 5 3 4 
			 Total 15 (2)— 23 20 18 
			   
			  Southend-on-Sea  
			 Vacant and derelict land and buildings 5 82 79 3 0 
			 Currently in use with potential for redevelopment 23 19 11 12 5 
			 Total 28 101 90 15 5 
			 (1) The 1998 specification of land currently in use allocated in the local plan or with planning permission included only housing sites. (2) Not available.

Planning

Colin Challen: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government when she plans to consult on reforms to Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 better to protect land threatened with division into small plots; and if she will make a statement.

Yvette Cooper: The Government issued a consultation paper on this issue on the 1 August.

Relative Need

John Hemming: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the relative need factors are; and what value they have for the financial year 2006-07.

Phil Woolas: I have been asked to reply.
	The Relative Needs Formula are, based on the demographic, physical and social characteristics of each area, used in the calculation of Formula Grant. Formula Grant comprises Revenue Support Grant, Redistributed Business Rates and principal formula Police Grant.
	In 2006-07, the total of all the Relative Needs Formula is factor of 0.67811309347259. The total for each of the separate Relative Needs Formula are given in Annex E of the Local Government Finance Report (England) 2006-07.
	The Relative Needs Formula for each local authority can be found on the Department for Communities and Local Government website at:
	http://www.local.communities.gov.uk/finance/0607/g:rant.htm

Water Conservation

Caroline Spelman: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government pursuant to the answer from the then Minister for the Environment to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) of 4 May 2006,  Official Report, columns 1732-3W, on water conservation resources, when a copy of the sustainability impacts study of additional house building scenarios in England will be placed in the Library.

Yvette Cooper: Copies of the sustainability impacts study of additional housing scenarios in England were placed in the Library on 27 April 2006. The report is also available on the Department for Communities and Local Government website at: http://www. communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1162086.

TREASURY

Poverty

Tim Farron: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many households in  (a) England and Wales,  (b) Cumbria,  (c) Westmorland and Lonsdale,  (d) urban areas and  (e) rural areas were below the poverty line in each year since 1997.

Jim Murphy: I have been asked to reply.
	Reliable information is not available below Government Office Region; the available information is in the tables.
	
		
			  Number of households in England and Wales living with less than 60 per cent. of the contemporary median household income, for the years 1996-97 to 2004-05 
			  Number of households (million) 
			   Before housing costs  After housing costs 
			 1996-97 3.8 5.5 
			 1997-98 3.9 5.3 
			 1998-99 3.9 5.4 
			 1999-2000 3.9 5.3 
			 2000-01 3.8 5.2 
			 2000-02 3.8 4.9 
			 2002-03 3.8 4.8 
			 2003-04 3.8 4.7 
			 2004-05 3.7 4.4 
			  Note: All results shown for England and Wales are single-year values as sample sizes for England and Wales are large enough to support a robust single-year time-series.  Source:  Family Resources Survey 
		
	
	
		
			  Number of households falling below 60 per cent. of the contemporary median income, by urban and rural areas: England, for the years 1996-97 to 2004-05 
			  Number of households (million) 
			   Before housing costs  Before housing costs 
			   Urban  Rural  Urban  Rural 
			 1996-97 2.7 0.9 3.9 1.2 
			 1997-98 2.7 1.0 3.8 1.2 
			 1998-99 2.7 1.0 3.8 1.3 
			 1999-2000 2.7 1.0 3.8 1.2 
			 2000-01 2.6 1.0 3.6 1.2 
			 2000-02 2.6 1.0 3.5 1.1 
			 2002-03 2.6 0.9 3.4 1.1 
			 2003-04 2.6 1.0 3.2 1.2 
			 2004-05 2.5 0.9 3.1 0.9 
			  Note: All values presented for urban and rural areas in England are single-year estimates as sample sizes for these areas are large enough to support a robust single-year time-series.  Source:  Family Resources Survey

Scottish Transport Projects

Jo Swinson: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the current arrangements are regarding the accounting for value added tax by local authorities in Scotland for  (a) road and  (b) rail building projects.

John Healey: Where a local authority has responsibility for building or maintaining a road, any VAT incurred can be reclaimed from HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC).
	Where the statutory obligations for road building are legally delegated to a local authority by the Scottish Executive, the local authority can recover from HMRC the VAT it pays to a road builder on the cost of the construction of the road, and the local authority does not charge VAT on any funding it receives from the Executive for the project.
	However, if the local authority is engaged by the Executive as a contractor to supply the road, this is a service provided by the local authority to the Executive and VAT is chargeable by the local authority to the Executive.
	The same principles would apply to railway building projects insofar as these involve local authorities.

VAT

David Drew: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will  (a) reduce and  (b) remove VAT on fruit drinks.

John Healey: Most foodstuffs are VAT zero-rated, saving consumers approximately £10.6 billion in the last financial year. This zero rate does not however extend to certain beverages, including fruit drinks, which have been subject to VAT since the decision to apply the standards of VAT in 1993. Under our agreements with our European partners, we are not able to extend existing VAT zero rates or introduce any new ones. It is therefore not possible to remove VAT from fruit drinks and other beverages.
	These same agreements do allow the UK to introduce a reduced rate of VAT of not less than 5 per cent. for foodstuffs that are not already VAT zero-rated. While all taxes are kept under review, to date we have been sparing in our use of VAT reduced rates and have only applied them where the tax system offers the most effective and best-targeted support for our social objectives, when compared with other policy instruments. The 2004 Wanless report on public health highlighted difficulties in principle and practice in using the tax system to promote public health. To date, the Government have therefore focused resources to encourage healthy eating choices outside the tax system. This includes action and resources to provide classroom teaching of the benefits of good nutrition and a £235 million package to transform the quality of school meals, reflecting new nutritional standards for primary and secondary schools. Under the School Fruit and Vegetable Scheme all 4-6 year olds in LEA schools are entitled to a free piece of fruit or vegetable each school day. In 2007 a new telephone, online and digital television service is being introduced to support people of all ages in making healthier lifestyle choices.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Angola

Andrew George: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what  (a) level of UK public investment and  (b) plans for support his Department has in respect of the future reconstruction of Angola.

Hilary Benn: pursuant to the reply, 13 September 2006, Official Report, c. 2358W
	DFID was quoted as contributing £3.5 million to a UNICEF £18 million Southern Africa programme. This should have read:
	"DFID's £18 million contribution to UNICEF for vulnerable children and orphans affected by HIV/AIDS in Southern Africa (of which Angola will receive around £3 million)."
	I apologise for this error in the original answer.

Developing Countries

Andrew George: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment he has made of the merits of reforming the  (a) World Trade Organisation and  (b) International Monetary Fund to give developing countries more influence over the body's decision-making and policy formulation.

Hilary Benn: The World Trade Organisation (WTO) operates on a "one member, one vote" basis, and takes decisions by consensus. In effect, any country can veto any decision. Developing countries also make up the majority of the WTO membership. While this gives developing countries more influence over the WTO's decision making process, the negotiating process is more complex in an organisation of just under 150 members.
	We support the need to strengthen developing country voice and participation at the International Monetary Fund (IMF). We welcome the current debate on the governance of the IMF in the context of the Managing Director's Report on the Fund's Medium Term Strategy. This recognises the importance of governance reform for the continued effectiveness and credibility of the IMF. We support the central objectives of this reform to adjust the shares of member countries to reflect global economic changes and to strengthen the participation and voice of low income countries. We believe the influence of developing countries within the IMF can be bolstered by measures including strengthening their voting rights, increasing support for their representatives at the IMF Executive Board and by increasing discussion and debate at the international and country level. We look forward to continuing discussion on these issues at the Annual Meetings in Singapore.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

Apprenticeships

Andrew Selous: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people applied for an electrical apprenticeship in the last year for which figures are available; and how many were accepted.

Parmjit Dhanda: holding answer 18 September 2006
	Data on numbers of applications for each framework are not held centrally. The following table shows 2004/05 Apprenticeship starts for those frameworks with an electrical component in them.
	
		
			  Sector framework title  Total (starts) 
			 Electrical & Electronic Servicing 71 
			 Electricity Industry 232 
			 Electrotechnical 6,119 
			 Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning and Refrigeration 992 
			 Plumbing 4,621 
			 Grand Total 12,035 
			  Source: WBL 2004/05 ILR, Learning & Skills Council.

Disability Equality Scheme

Gordon Marsden: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he plans to publish the disability equality scheme for his Department; and in what formats it will be published.

Parmjit Dhanda: holding answer 18 September 2006
	The Government are committed to improving the position of disabled people in society and believes that public bodies should take the lead in promoting equality of opportunity for all. In compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 my Department will publish its Disability Equality Scheme on 4 December 2006. It is our intention to publish the Scheme on our departmental website. Additionally we will provide versions in a range of formats including hard copy, large print, word with minimal tables, and Easyread. We will also respond to requests to reproduce the Scheme in Braille, Audio and other formats.

Identity Fraud

Nigel Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what internal training courses on tackling identity fraud are provided to departmental staff who have access to members of the public's personal information.

Parmjit Dhanda: I refer the hon. Member to the Written Answer I gave the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) on 2 February 2006,  Official Report, column 680W.

Plimsolls

Bob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills 
	(1)  if he will issue advice to schools to enable children with medical needs to use special, rather than standard, plimsoll type footwear while at school; and if he will make a statement;
	(2)  if he will carry out research into  (a) how many schools seek to enforce the use of standard plimsoll type footwear by pupils and  (b) the impact of such enforcement on children with foot, knee and hip problems; and if he will make a statement;
	(3)  what guidance he issues to schools on that duty of care in respect of children with foot, knee and hip problems with regard to the footwear they are allowed to use while in school.

Parmjit Dhanda: holding answer 18 September 2006
	Governing bodies determine school uniform and dress codes under powers conferred by the 1998 School Standards and Framework Act. In doing so they must comply with their duties under the Disability Discrimination Acts and consider what reasonable adjustments should be made for disabled pupils, some of whom will have medical conditions.
	Schools and employers (either the local authority in the case of community and voluntary controlled schools or the school governing body in the case of a foundation or voluntary aided school) are responsible for developing their own policies on supporting individual children with medical needs. The Department has published a training resource for schools and local authorities "Implementing the Disability Discrimination Act in schools and early years settings" that provides schools and local authorities with practical tools to improve their effectiveness—both in making reasonable adjustments to include disabled pupils in all aspects of school life, and in reviewing and revising their plans for increasing access for disabled pupils to school premises and facilities, and the curriculum.

Pupil Performance

Graham Brady: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the local education authorities in England in order of percentage of pupils achieving Level 7 in Key Stage 3 SATS in the 2005-06 academic year, stating in each case whether the local authority is selective, partially selective or comprehensive.

Parmjit Dhanda: holding answer 13 September 2006
	The information requested has been placed in the House Libraries.

Student Transport Grants

Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills 
	(1)  what the  (a) average and  (b) maximum subsidy per student paid was to local education authorities for post-16 student transport grants for each local education authority for each year between 2001-02 and 2006-07;
	(2)  for how much each local education authority in England bid in respect of resources for transport grants for school and college students over the age of 16 years; and how much each received for each year between 2001-02 and 2006-07.

Parmjit Dhanda: holding answer 18 September 2006
	No specific grants are provided by central Government to fund post 16 transport. Local authorities' responsibilities for transport provision and concessionary fares is funded through formula grant from central government (comprised in the main of Revenue Support Grant and National Non-Domestic Rates) and through income generated by councils, including council tax. Formula grant is not hypothecated to a particular service and councils are free to use the funding in line with the wishes of their electorate and taking into account their statutory responsibilities.
	Amendments were made to the Education Act 2002 that placed a duty on local authorities to ensure that transport was not a barrier to students of sixth form age wanting to participate in FE. DfES does not provide direct funding for post 16 transport but has made available a small amount of funding to each local authority to enable them to meet their statutory duties by forming transport partnership groups and developing their local transport policies and transport arrangements. The overall DfES funding for each year is 2003/04 £14 million, 2004/05 £13 million, 2005/06 £12 million, 2006/07 £12 million.
	Individual post-16 students are also able to access hardship funds from their school or college to help with costs of further education, including transport, and individual learners who receive education maintenance allowance may use an element of the allowance to contribute towards transport costs.

ENVIRONMENT FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

Avian Influenza

Peter Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the Department's budget for preparation for an outbreak of avian influenza was in each year since 1997; and what outturn expenditure was in each such year.

Barry Gardiner: holding answer 13 September 2006
	Prior to 2005, preparedness costs for AI were not recorded separately from preparedness costs for other exotic animal health diseases.
	For 2005-06 the outturn on AI preparedness was £9 million.
	The forecast expenditure for AI preparedness in 2006-07 is currently £18 million.

Bovine Tuberculosis

Andrew George: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans he has to control the impact of the spread of bovine tuberculosis on the British dairy and beef industry.

Ben Bradshaw: holding answer 13 September 2006
	In line with the 'Government strategic framework for the sustainable control of bovine tuberculosis in Great Britain', we have made a commitment, to work in partnership with dairy and beef farmers, and with others, to reduce the geographic spread of bovine TB and achieve a sustained reduction in decrease in high incidence areas.
	In March we introduced compulsory pre-movement testing of cattle in England to reduce the risk of spreading TB through cattle movements. The current legislation applies to cattle over 15 months of age moving from one and two year tested herds. Farmers are generally complying with the policy and TB reactors are being identified, so there is emerging evidence that the policy is helping to prevent disease spread. The policy is being kept under review to enable modifications, if necessary, prior to the planned implementation of phase 2 in March 2007 which will extend pre-movement testing to movements of cattle over 42 days old. DEFRA will continue to work closely with interested organisations during the introduction of phase 2.
	To enhance our existing, and comprehensive, cattle testing programme we recently announced that from October 2006 the gamma interferon test will be used more extensively in England and Wales, alongside the skin test, in certain prescribed circumstances. Using both tests in this way can help to speed up the resolution of confirmed TB breakdowns by identifying as many infected cattle as possible at the earliest opportunity. Compensation is payable for animals which are caused to be slaughtered under section 32 of the Animal Health Act 1981.
	We continue to make progress with our research on vaccine development. We have started testing candidate vaccines in naturally infected cattle and badgers, as well as work on developing novel vaccine delivery systems, and we have committed to future funding of approximately £5.5 million per annum for this.
	No decisions have yet been made about badger culling to control bovine TB. Any decision needs to have a sound scientific and practical foundation and we do not yet have this. The evidence base is complex and a number of practical delivery issues need to be resolved. The strength of feeling on badger culling, as demonstrated by the 47,000 responses to the recent badger culling consultation, combined with the range of evidence, mean it is crucial that our decision is not rushed. My officials and I have been discussing the issue with interested groups to try to establish a shared understanding of the facts before we can make progress. We are not ruling anything in or out at this stage.
	Finally, farmers also have a crucial role to play in preventing bovine TB—not only by complying with statutory policies designed to limit the spread of the disease but by ensuring they apply good biosecurity measures and suitable husbandry practices on their holdings.

Bovine Tuberculosis

David Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment he has made of the incidence of bovine tuberculosis in cattle; what research he has conducted on the reasons for the trend; and how this research has been used to develop the strategy for tackling the disease.

Ben Bradshaw: holding answer 11 September 2006
	Following a steady increase in the total number of new bovine tuberculosis (bTB) incidents over recent years, there has been a provisional 15 per cent. reduction in the number of new incidents in Great Britain from January to July 2006 compared with the same period in 2005.
	The chief veterinary officer (CVO) has undertaken a review of the apparent reduction, drawing on detailed analyses carried out by epidemiologists from the Veterinary Laboratories Agency and DEFRA officials, comments from a group of independent experts convened by the chief scientific adviser, and views from farmers, practising vets and the state veterinary service. She concluded that whilst there has been a real reduction in the number of new TB incidents, it is too early to draw firm conclusions as to whether this is a temporary change or the start of a sustained trend. She also recognised that the reduction is likely to be caused by a complex combination of factors.
	A summary of the analysis is included in a recent report by the CVO, which is available on the DEFRA website at:
	http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/tb/pdf/cvo-tbstatement.pdf.
	Further analysis will be carried out to try to reduce the level of uncertainty around these conclusions. Emerging findings will be used to inform policy development.

Cattle Valuations

Peter Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs by what means market valuations are derived for the purpose of cattle compensation.

Ben Bradshaw: holding answer 18 September 2006
	 : Cattle compensation for four notifiable diseases (bovine tuberculosis, brucellosis, bovine spongiform encephalopathy and enzootic bovine leukosis) in England is determined each month. This is done primarily using table valuations based on average sales prices achieved for pre-determined cattle categories, drawn up in consultation with the industry. To support the system, sales data is continuously collected by an independent service provider from a large number and wide range of sources across Great Britain . These sources include 'regular' markets, dispersal sales, and breed sales.
	Table valuations are based on real sales prices achieved at market; the compensation payable in respect of an individual animal is the average market price for its category. There are 47 categories in total and these are split into non-pedigree and pedigree. At the end of each month, the average sales figure is determined. For non-pedigree categories the average is calculated from one month's data, and for pedigree categories six month's data are used.

Departmental Budget

Peter Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 
	(1)  what alterations have been made to the 2006-07 budget allocations to bodies funded by his Department; and what the value of the change was in each case;
	(2)  when the last review of the departmental internal budget allocations took place; and if he will publish the budget alterations that were agreed as a result.

Barry Gardiner: holding answer 13 September 2006
	As a matter of good financial management we keep our budgets and spending under regular review and challenge, and adjust them as new pressures and demands arise. Bodies funded by this Department are included in this process. Following the most recent review Ministers have agreed updated budgets for 2006-07. The financial performance of the Department for this year will be set out in the published departmental report.

Farmer Prosecutions

James Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many farmers were  (a) prosecuted and  (b) convicted in each year since 1997 under laws which have since been repealed, updated or replaced.

Barry Gardiner: The Cattle Identification Regulations 1998 ("CIR"), the Cattle Database Regulations 1998 ("CDR") and the Eggs (Marketing Standards) Regulations 1995 ("the EMSR") made it an offence to fail to comply with or breach certain EC regulations. These EC Regulations have subsequently been repealed and replaced by new EC regulations. Neither the CIR, CDR nor the ESMR were updated to reflect this. Each new EC Regulation contained a provision stating that references to the repealed Regulation shall be construed as references to the new Regulation. On this basis Defra believed it was not necessary to update the domestic regulations. The dates of the relevant repeals are 14 August 2000 in respect of the CIR and CDR and 1 January 2004 for the EMSR. Only convictions obtained after these dates will be affected by the failure to up-date the relevant domestic regulations. The Secretary of State made a written ministerial statement about the matter on 15 June 2006,  Official Report, column 67WS.
	Under the Cattle Identification Regulations 1998 ("CIR"), the Cattle Database Regulations 1998 ("CDR"), 51 prosecutions were carried out which resulted in 45 convictions. The breakdown year by year is as follows (these figures include England and Wales):
	
		
			   Number 
			 2000 1 
			 2001 5 
			 2002 4 
			 2003 6 
			 2004 9 
			 2005 17 
			 2006 3 
		
	
	Under The Eggs (Marketing Standards) Regulations 1995, nine prosecutions were undertaken which resulted in six convictions. The breakdown year by year is as follows (these figures include England and Wales):
	
		
			   Number 
			 2004 3 
			 2005 2 
			 2006 1 
		
	
	While all these convictions may be considered to be unsafe because of the technical defect the convictions will have been obtained in respect of actions that breached the EU legislation designed to protect public health. I am satisfied that our enforcement procedures have been, and will continue to be, rigorous. Public and animal health has been protected by the work of our inspectors, and will continue to be so.

Home Composting

David Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps he is taking to encourage greater home composting; and if he will seek to persuade local authorities to remove putrescible waste from landfill.

Ben Bradshaw: holding answer 18 September 2006
	Composting is high up the waste hierarchy and is supported by a range of policies that promote sustainable waste management. National and local targets for composting and recycling are currently being reviewed as part of the wider review of the Waste Strategy.
	The Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) estimates that over 34 per cent. of households already participate in home composting schemes, with 23 percent of British households composting both kitchen and garden waste. WRAP is working with local authorities and other partners to increase this further through websites, a dedicated helpline and the distribution of one million home composting bins to households across the country.
	Local authorities are strictly limited in the amount of biodegradable waste they can landfill by their allocations under the Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme. A further incentive is provided by the annually increasing landfill tax, which currently stands at £21 per tonne.

IT Expenditure

Peter Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the  (a) projected budget and  (b) actual expenditure was on information technology in each Directorate in his Department in each year since 1997.

Barry Gardiner: holding answer 11 September 2006
	Information technology budgets are managed centrally with only small items of expenditure, such as consumables, delegated to directorates. The overall investment in information technology is published each year in the departmental resource accounts.

IT Expenditure

Peter Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which directorates in his Department have overspent on their information technology budgets in each year since 1997; how much in each case; and what the reasons were in each case.

Barry Gardiner: holding answer 11 September 2006
	Information technology budgets are managed centrally with only small items of expenditure, such as consumables, delegated to directorates. The nature of this control means that overspends are avoided.

Marine Environment

Christopher Huhne: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many enforcement actions there were under the powers of the Marine Fisheries Agency concerning the marine environment in each of the last five years; and how many  (a) prosecutions were brought and  (b) convictions were attained in each year.

Ben Bradshaw: holding answer 13 September 2006
	The following table summarises the Marine Fisheries Agency (previously Sea Fisheries Inspectorate) enforcement action under the provisions of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 (FEPA) as at 12 September 2006.
	
		
			   Inspections of licensed construction and disposal operations  Infringements of FEPA licence requirements  Investigations arising from licensed and unlicensed operations  Official warnings  Prosecutions  Convictions 
			 2006 172 4 1 1 0 0 
			 2005 153 14 5 3 3 3 
			 2004 128 16 4 0 0 0 
			 2003 142 8 2 11 2 2 
			 2002 226 28 25 7 2 2 
			 2001 220 5 10 2 0 0 
		
	
	The following table is a summary of other Marine Fisheries Agency enforcement actions including prosecutions and convictions for the years 2003, 2004 and 2005.
	
		
			  Number 
			   2003  2004  2005 
			 Inspections of fishing vessels in port by MFA staff 4,137 3,654 2,842 
			 Boardings of fishing vessels at sea 1,704 1,712 1,466 
			 Infringements detected by surveillance aircraft 9 6 1 
			 infringements investigated(1) 259 218 253 
			 Infringements resulting in official written warnings 69 101 140 
			 Infringements prosecuted, (including Master and Owner combined figures)(2) 84 62 57 
			 Convictions obtained (including Master and Owner combined figures)(2) 82 61 56 
			 (1 )Documentation checks, satellite tracking data, transport checks, and market premises inspections will contribute to the number of investigations. (2 )In cases where the Master and Owner of a fishing vessel are different both will usually be prosecuted for the same offences, as required by the legislation. The figures combine these separate infringements for the same offences as one.  Notes:  1. Results are based on the date of the offence, there are ongoing investigations yet to be concluded. 2. Inspections may result in the detection of more than one infringement. Each infringement contributes to the results.

Non-human Primates

Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 
	(1)  what steps have been taken towards reducing the risks to non-human primates from the  (a) trade in bushmeat,  (b) laboratory trade,  (c) trade in exotic pets and  (d) use of primates in entertainment;
	(2)  what response he has made to the dossier submitted by Animal Defenders International to the Prime Minister's office on 1 September; and if he will publish that response.

Ben Bradshaw: holding answer 11 September 2006
	The UK cannot intervene directly in sovereign matters of other countries, and bushmeat has been a legitimate and acceptable food source for domestic consumption in many countries for generations. While some bushmeat may be entering the UK, it is understood not to be in significant quantities. Moreover, of the limited amount which may be entering the country, we consider the endangered-species element, including that of non-human primates, is likely to be at a very low level.
	The use of animals in experiments and other scientific procedures is strictly regulated by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, for which the Home Office has the lead responsibility. Non-human primates are afforded special protection under the Act and there are stringent requirements regarding their use in scientific experiments. The use of wild-caught non-human primates is subject to supplementary additional considerations.
	The Home Office announced in 1997 that there are no foreseen circumstances under which licences under the 1986 Act for programmes of work involving the use of Great Apes (chimpanzees, pygmy chimpanzees, gorillas and orang-utans) would be issued. In addition, exceptional justification would be required for the licensed use of other types of non-human primates taken from the wild.
	The 1986 Act provides that non-human primates, whether captive bred or wild-caught, can only be used when no other species are suitable for the purposes of the programme to be specified in the licence, or that it is not practicable to obtain animals of any other species that are suitable for those purposes. For the use of wild-caught primates to be exceptionally authorised, there must be no appropriate alternative, no suitable captive-bred animals available and the likely benefits of the programme of work would have to fully justify their use.
	The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate and the Animal Procedures Committee provide advice on a case-by-case basis on whether, and on what terms, such use should be licensed. Application of these stringent criteria has meant that first time use of wild-caught non-human primates in scientific procedures has not been licensed in the UK for some years.
	The import, export and re-export of primates is strictly regulated under Council Regulation 338/97, which implements the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) of Wild Fauna and Flora within the EU. The Government's view is that primates are not suitable for the general pet trade. We currently limit imports of these species to specialist keepers who must be able to demonstrate that they are sufficiently well equipped and experienced to house and care for them. In July last year, Defra launched a public consultation regarding the use of powers under Article 8.2 of Council Regulation 338/97, which sought views on proposals designed to further restrict the keeping of certain CITES listed species, including primates.
	We propose to introduce a regulation under the Animal Welfare Bill to ban the use, in travelling circuses, of certain non-domesticated species whose welfare needs cannot be satisfactorily met in that environment. A Circus Working Group has been set up to advise on this proposal. We also intend to introduce Codes of Practice to cover all performing animals, not just those in circuses. This will address issues such as training activities, trainer competences and accommodation needs for animals when travelling.
	I would like to thank Animal Defenders International for their dossier "Primate Nations." The use of animals, including non-human primates, in research and testing is an issue for which the Home Office has responsibility.
	A copy of the dossier will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

Packaging

Michael Moore: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the Government's policy is on the non-mandatory status of European Commission Decision 97/129/EC which provides for numbering and abbreviations to identify different packaging materials, including plastics; and if he will make a statement.

Ben Bradshaw: holding answer 13 September 2006
	The Government have no plans to make the marking of plastic household products mandatory. However, while the marking system is voluntary, we would encourage manufacturers to use the markings where possible, in order to aid the process of sorting and recycling plastic packaging waste.

Questionnaires

David Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many  (a) questionnaires,  (b) statistical inquiries and  (c) investigations have been carried out wholly or partly at public expense on behalf of or by his Department or public bodies for which he is responsible in each year since 1997; and what the (i) nature, (ii) purpose and (iii) cost was in each case.

Barry Gardiner: The Defra website provides information on the type of statistical surveys and research conducted by the Department.
	It is intended to start to publish a review of surveys conducted , including the costs . This will begin with the review of surveys conducted in 2005 which is expected to be published on the website shortly.
	A full list of Government surveys and other sources of official statistics is available in the Guide to Official Statistics published by the Government Statistical Service (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/Product .asp?vlnk=1551&Pos=&ColRank=1&Rank=422).

Recycling

Barry Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps his Department is taking to improve the level of recycling of waste electrical and electronic materials.

Ben Bradshaw: holding answer 13 September 2006
	The Government are in the process of implementing the waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) directive, which aims to reduce the quantity of waste from electrical and electronic equipment and increase re-use, recovery and recycling. The directive requires member states to ensure that producers (or third parties acting on their behalf) set up systems to provide for the collection, treatment, recovery and environmentally sound disposal of WEEE.
	The Department of Trade and Industry (the department with the lead responsibility for implementing the directive) is currently carrying out a consultation on draft regulations which transpose the directive into UK legislation, and accompanying guidance. The closing date for the consultation is 17 October 2006.

Single Farm Payments

Daniel Kawczynski: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps he took to ensure all farmers were paid by the June deadline by the Rural Payments Agency.

Barry Gardiner: Following the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South on 16 March 2006,  Official Report, column 104WS, a number of measures were put in place to expedite claims.
	The House has subsequently been kept informed of these measures on 27 March 2006,  Official Report, column 543; 29 March 2006,  Official Report, column 305WH; 19 April 2006,  Official Report, column 13WS; 9 May 2006,  Official Report, column 10WS; 22 June 2006,  Official Report, column 1478; and, 5 July 2006,  Official Report, column 42WS.

Single Farm Payments

Anne McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of previously outstanding payments under the single farm payment scheme have been paid in full in North Yorkshire.

Barry Gardiner: holding answer 13 September 2006
	As of 30 June 2006 the total value of single payment scheme payments made to customers in North Yorkshire amounted to £105,445,055.
	The value of payments made to customers in North Yorkshire from 1 July 2006 through to 8 September 2006 amounted to £3,275,952.19.
	The payment value includes partial payments made.

Single Farm Payments

Tony Baldry: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when he expects Peter Brown to receive his single payment from the Rural Payments Agency (Holding number 33/186/0003 and single business identification 106326473).

Barry Gardiner: Mr. Brown received a Single Payment Scheme payment on 8 May 2006.
	All work on Mr. Brown's 2005 claim has been completed.
	Mr. Brown was paid only flat rate. It has been stated that this is a full payment. After further inspection it appears that his historic entitlements have been omitted from payment.
	An emergency change request has now been implemented onto the system and a manual payment was made on 4 August 2006.

DEFENCE

Afghanistan

Mark Harper: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what requests for  (a) more helicopters,  (b) other equipment and  (c) more personnel from field commanders in Afghanistan have been received by (i) Permanent Joint HQ, (ii) Defence Chiefs of Staff and (iii) Ministers since 25 July 2006.

Michael Moore: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has received any requests from British commanders for  (a) more troops and  (b) extra munitions or equipment to support the British deployment in Afghanistan.

Des Browne: holding answers 13 and 18 September 2006
	Both the Ministry of Defence and the Permanent Joint Headquarters regularly receive requests from Theatre for changes to the military capabilities and equipment deployed, as part of the routine process of evaluating our force structure. The more substantial changes in personnel levels or equipment are incorporated into periodic Force Level Reviews. I announced the outcome of the most recent such review on 10 July 2006,  Official Report, columns 1131-35 and, for its helicopters, on 24 July 2006,  Official Report, columns 74-76WS. More minor changes, such as my recent decision to deploy an additional Harrier GR7a to Kandahar, are made as soon as practicable.
	Reports from British commanders in Theatre since 25 July have informed the UK's position towards the NATO Force Generation process: minor adjustments aside, they have not sought to reinforce 16 Air Assault Brigade and its supporting units.

Afghanistan

Peter Bone: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many troops have been committed by each country to the conflict in Afghanistan; and if he will make statement on the availability of troops from other NATO countries.

Des Browne: holding answer 13 September 2006
	ISAF currently comprises around 20,000 troops from 37 NATO and non-NATO nations:
	Albania, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, and United States of America.
	The precise numbers of forces deployed by each nation fluctuates. At present the largest ISAF troop contributors are the following: the UK (around 5,000), Germany (around 2,750), Canada and the Netherlands (around 2,000), Italy (around 1,600), US (around 1,300), and France (almost 1,000); and many nations are also contributing essential enablers and capabilities such as helicopters, air support and medical facilities.
	Identification of additional forces and capabilities for deployment is a matter for the NATO force generation process. We are working with NATO Allies and non-NATO troop contributors to ensure that commanders on the ground have access to the resources they need to carry out the ISAF mission.
	There are also around 18,600 international troops in and around Afghanistan under the coalition-led Operation Enduring Freedom. The bulk of these are from the US, but this also includes forces from a number of NATO Allies.

Afghanistan

Mark Harper: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which  (a) Ministers,  (b) hon. Members and  (c) Members of the House of Lords visited British troops in Afghanistan in (i) July and (ii) August 2006.

Derek Twigg: holding answer 18 September 2006
	In July, the following Members of the House of Commons Defence Committee visited Afghanistan:
	James Arbuthnot MP
	David Borrow MP
	Dai Havard MP
	David Hamilton MP
	Adam Holloway MP
	Brian Jenkins MP
	Kevan Jones MP
	Mark Lancaster MP
	Willie Rennie MP
	John Smith MP
	The right hon. David Cameron MP, Leader of the Opposition, and Liam Fox MP, also visited in July as did the noble and gallant Lord Boyce.
	In August, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development visited British troops.

Aircraft

John Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Harrier jets are grounded in Afghanistan because they are being used as sources of spare parts.

Adam Ingram: holding answer 13 September 2006
	None of the GR7 Harrier Jets deployed on operations in Afghanistan are grounded as a result of being used as a source for spare parts.

Armed Services (Training)

Joan Humble: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the topics covered on induction courses for civilian medical staff taking up post at Army initial training establishments; and what advice is given concerning  (a) the detection of bullying and  (b) confidential reporting procedures.

Derek Twigg: Civilian medical staff attend induction training at their respective place of employment within the initial training organisation. They receive further induction training specific to their medical facility and the Army Primary Health Care Service (APHCS). Induction training covers broadly the following topics:
	Unit organisation and personalities
	Chain of command and lines of communication
	Pay and personnel procedures
	Health and Safety
	Fraud and Theft
	Training and development
	Equality and diversity
	Harassment and how to deal with it
	Code of Practice for Instructors, for all military and civilian staff
	Practice administration.
	Equality and diversity, and harassment and how to deal with it cover advice during the induction process on the detection of bullying. Annual mandatory Equal Opportunities and Diversity Awareness training further enhance this. All staff have a number of MOD publications available to them which include The MOD Harassment Complaints Procedures, The Civil Service Bullying and Harassment Leaflet and the Adjutant General's Joint Equality and Diversity Directive.
	Confidential reporting procedures are covered by the Army Primary Health Care Service guide on Confidentiality which refers to the Data Protection Act 1998, Human Rights Act 2000, and Department of Health guidelines on Protecting and Using Patient Information. All civilian medical practitioners are governed by General Medical Council Good Medical Practice, which includes matters of confidentiality and guidance on protecting and providing information.

Army Personnel

David Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 
	(1)  how many serving Regular Army personnel have  (a) left and  (b) given notice of their intention to leave the army within 12 months of completing service in Iraq since 2003.
	(2)  how many serving Territorial Army personnel have  (a) left and  (b) given notice of their intention to leave the army within 12 months of completing service in Iraq since 2003.

Derek Twigg: holding answers 18 September 2006
	The data is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

Army Personnel

David Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people left the army in each of the last five years.

Derek Twigg: holding answer 11 September 2006
	Figures for "Outflow from UK Regular Forces" are published monthly in Tri-Service Publication 1 (TSP1), a copy of which is held in the Library of the House.

AWE Aldermaston

Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the latest estimate is of total capital spending on AWE Aldermaston  (a) in 2006-07 and  (b) in each of the next three years.

Des Browne: holding answer 13 September 2006
	The currently planned capital expenditure at the two AWE sites at Aldermaston and Burghfield is in the order of £340 million in 2006-07 and £420 million for 2007-08, both at outturn prices. Spending plans for subsequent years have yet to be finalised.

Body Armour

John Maples: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether all serving military personnel in  (a) Iraq and  (b) Afghanistan are provided with body armour which protects vital organs in addition to the heart; and whether soldiers being sent to each country will be issued with the old body armour which protects the heart only.

Des Browne: Military personnel serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are provided with appropriate body armour for the tasks that they are undertaking. All troops deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan are issued with Enhanced Combat Body Armour (ECBA) as standard. This contains protective ceramic plates at the front and rear, which protect the heart and other organs in the upper thorax of the body. Two other body armour sets are available in theatre: Enhanced Personal Protective Equipment, known as 'Kestrel'; and Improved Performance Body Armour, known as 'Osprey' which provides additional protection, for example to the neck and shoulders.
	Osprey sets will shortly replace ECBA as the minimum standard in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Delivery of Osprey to both theatres is expected to be substantially complete by late autumn.
	Whether ECBA, Kestrel, Osprey or indeed, whether any body armour is worn, is determined by the commander's assessment of the nature of the task, the current threat, and the environment in which they are operating in.

Christmas Cards

Greg Hands: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the cost to his Department of sending Christmas cards in 2005.

Derek Twigg: The Ministry of Defence spent approximately £3,200 on the printing, purchase and posting of Christmas cards in 2005. This excludes a small amount spent by Defence Attachés (for representational purposes) which is not identifiable without disproportionate cost.

Defence Information Infrastructure Project

Gerald Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the latest estimates are of the savings made by his Department arising from the EDS contract for the Defence Information Infrastructure project for each of the first three years.

Adam Ingram: holding answer 13 September 2006
	The estimate of savings to be made by the Department for each of the first three years of the Defence Information Infrastructure Project is shown in the following table:
	
		
			  Financial year  Savings (£ million) 
			 2005-06 (1)30 
			 2006-07 (2)31 
			 2007-08 (2)32 
			 (1) Actual (2 )Estimated

Defence Sector Employment

John Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 
	(1)  what assessment he has made of the degree to which Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) provisions were incorporated into the business case for the End 2 End (E2E) Logistics Review Air Depth Support Recommendation 40; and if he will make a statement;
	(2)  what assessment he has made of the application of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE) in the awarding of contracts for  (a) Tornado RB199 Operational Contract for Engine Transformation (ROCET),  (b) Tornado CMU,  (c) Harrier Joint Upgrade and Maintenance Programme (JUMP) and  (d) Tornado Tiger Team 1, VC10 Javelin Red; and what estimate he has made of the costs of TUPE-related activity in each case;
	(3)  what provision was made for the cost of the TUPE obligations in the  (a) Tornado RB199 Operational Contract for Engine Transformation (ROCET) and  (b) Tornado CMU and Harrier Joint Upgrade and Maintenance Programme; and what the resultant costs were.

Adam Ingram: holding answers 13 September 2006 and 18 September 2006
	The AMICUS trade union presented a claim against the Ministry of Defence, BAE Systems plc and Rolls Royce plc in the Cardiff employment tribunal on 26 July 2006, seeking, on behalf of affected employees, a declaration and an award for an alleged failure to consult under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981/2006 (TUPE) for certain transfers of work which may be linked to the Tornado ROCET, Tornado Combined Maintenance and Upgrade and Harrier JUMP contracts.
	At present, it is not appropriate to comment in detail on the applicability of the aforementioned regulations and related costs to these contracts as we are still considering our response to the employment tribunal to avoid prejudicing the proceedings.
	As I made clear in my letter to my hon. Friend of 25 July 2006, now placed in the Library of the House, it is clear that the overall costs of DARA work force restructuring/redundancy would have been broadly comparable irrespective of whether or not the provision of TUPE apply.
	We are considering the application of TUPE regulations as it relates to the study carried out by Tornado Tiger Team 1. I will write to my hon. Friend when this work has been completed. Under the 'Red' and 'Amber' phases of the VC10 Javelin programme, no work which had been undertaken by the DARA work force was transferred to either industry or a new owner. TUPE regulations therefore did not apply.

Defence Sector Employment

John Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost of  (a) voluntary and compulsory redundancies and  (b) compulsory early retirement measures were at DARA St. Athan in each financial year between 2002-03 and 2005-06, broken down by contract; and what the estimated costs for 2006-07 are on the same basis.

Adam Ingram: holding answer 13 September 2006
	The voluntary and compulsory redundancy costs and compulsory early retirement costs for each financial year from 2002-03 at DARA St. Athan were as follows:
	
		
			  £ million 
			   Voluntary/Compulsory  Early Retirement 
			 2002-03 (1)3,040 — 
			 2003-04 (1)4,125 — 
			 2004-05 4,656 1,358 
			 2005-06 6,221 2,071 
			 2006-07 (estimated) 7,663 2,109 
			 (1 )Figures for redundancy costs for DARA St. Athan during 2002-03 and 2003-04 were not collected separately and are shown as totals. 
		
	
	The costs broken down by or attributed to the various aircraft contracts are not available and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

Demobilised Reservists (Mental Health Services)

Mark Harper: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence where the planned new mental health provision for demobilised reservists will be located; what services will be provided; how much it is expected to cost; when the service is expected to commence; and if he will make a statement.

Derek Twigg: holding answer 18 September 2006
	I refer the Member to the statement made to the House on 16 May 2006,  Official Report, columns 43-46WS, to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson).

Demobilised Reservists (Mental Health Services)

David Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements are in place to ensure that ex-Territorial Army soldiers who served in Iraq receive assistance from his Department if they become subject to post traumatic stress disorder.

Derek Twigg: holding answer 18 September 2006
	The responsibility for the medical care of ex-service personnel, whether regular or reserve, lies with the NHS. This has been the established practice since 1948 under successive Governments. Where an individual is also a war pensioner, he or she is entitled to priority treatment for his or her accepted condition within the NHS. Priority is decided by the clinician in charge and applies to physical and mental health problems. For conditions that are due to service where treatment is not available under the NHS, the Government also funds care at the specialist mental health charity Combat Stress facilities, which last year cost £2.8 million.
	The health needs of the majority of veterans will be met by current NHS provisions. However, MOD has work in hand to ensure that there is a coherent response to veterans' mental health issues, co-ordinating inputs from the NHS, Health Departments throughout the UK, the services and ex-service organisations, including Combat Stress. The MOD is also working on a number of further measures for the prevention and management of operational stress, and has work in hand to ensure that service leavers can recognise the signs of stress and know where to go for help, using suitable magazine-style material.
	The MOD is currently developing detailed arrangements for the enhanced post-operational mental healthcare programme for recently demobilised reservists. The programme will offer a mental health assessment, conducted by appropriately qualified members of the Defence Medical Services (DMS). This will be available to any member of the reserve forces who has been demobilised since January 2003 following deployment on any operation overseas and who has a concern about their mental health as a result. If individuals are then assessed as having a mental health problem that is categorised primarily as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder or a related traumatic adjustment disorder, and that is directly related to their operational deployment and of a nature that can be treated within the resources of the DMS, then they will be offered out-patient treatment by the DMS.
	If the assessment identifies cases that fall outside the parameters set out above, such as complex multi-disorder diagnoses or acute cases requiring in-patient care, the DMS will refer them—with our assessment results—back to their civilian GP in order to assist their access to NHS treatment, as well as encouraging contact with the relevant welfare organisations to ensure follow-up.
	As my predecessor, the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson) said in his statement on 16 May, a further announcement will be made later this year to confirm the details of the programme, including the location(s) at which the assessments will be provided, and the date on which the service will commence.

Departmental Annual Report

Mark Harper: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to paragraph 44 of the Ministry of Defence Annual Report and Accounts 2005-06, what training exercises were cancelled; what the reasons were for cancellation in each case; and what steps his Department is taking to reduce the cancellation rate.

Adam Ingram: holding answer 11 September 2006
	During the period 1 April 2005 to 31 March 2006, a total of 58 training events recorded on the Defence Exercise Programme were cancelled. In summary, 30 exercises were cancelled due to operational commitments, 13 were removed as savings measures and 10 were cancelled by other nations. The remaining five events were cancelled in response to changing priorities or rescheduling.
	A number of measures are being taken to reduce exercise cancellations. Chief among these is a rebalancing of the Defence Exercise Programme to enable training to focus on fewer, more comprehensive, exercises.

Deployment

Peter Bone: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many and what proportion of the armed forces were engaged in operations overseas and in Northern Ireland in each of the last 10 years; and what proportion and number were not so engaged in each year.

Adam Ingram: holding answer 13 September 2006
	The most current figures collected from manual records show that on 5 September 2006 the deployment of UK Service personnel on operations overseas was:
	
		
			   Number 
			 All Services 14,140 
			 Naval Service 680 
			 Army 11,220 
			 RAF 2,240 
			  Notes: 1. Data are rounded to the nearest 10. 2. Figures include mobilised Reservists. 
		
	
	Figures for the number of UK Service personnel deployed overseas are not available in a consistent time series. Percentages of Service personnel undertaking operations and other military tasks are, however, published in the Ministry of Defence Annual Report and Accounts.
	Figures from 2001-02 to 2005-06 are shown in the following tables, which have been extracted from each annual report. Summary information for 1998-99 and 1999-2000 was published in the respective Ministry of Defence Performance Reports (CM4520, CM5000), copies of which can be found in the Library of the House. This information was not compiled on a comparable basis to those set out in the following tables.
	Quarterly information for years predating the 1998 Strategic Defence Review is not held centrally.
	The following figures report the percentage of Regular Armed Forces undertaking operations and other military tasks. These figures are quarterly averages and are calculated by comparing the number of personnel undertaking operations and other military tasks against the total strength of the Armed Forces. Figures for 2005-06 are collated using a different methodology, and are therefore not comparable.
	
		
			  Percentage of Regular Armed Forces undertaking operations and other military tasks( 1)  during 2005-06 
			   April to June  July to September  October to December  January to March 
			 Naval Service 11.6 9.3 12.1 13.5 
			 Army 21.0 22.0 22.8 25.1 
			 RAF 13.3 11.9 12.3 13.4 
			 (1) Includes activities such as nuclear deterrence, Military Aid to the Civil Authorities and to the Civil Powers in Northern Ireland, integrity of UK waters and airspace, defence and security of the Overseas Territories and of the Cyprus Sovereign Base Areas and Defence Relations, Alliances and support to Wider British Interests.  Notes: 2. These figures are quarterly averages and reflect the burden of activity imposed by the operations and military tasks undertaken by each service. Figures are based on man-day equivalents. 3. Notes 1 and 2 apply to the following four tables. 4. Percentages include personnel in preparation for and recovering from operations (e.g. in the case of the Army it takes account of those on pre-operational training and post-operational leave). 
		
	
	
		
			  Percentage of trained strength of Regular Forces deployed on operations and other military tasks( 1)  during 2004-05 
			   April to June  July to September  October to December  January to March 
			 Naval Service 16.8 13.2 13.3 11.6 
			 Army 23.7 22.1 21.4 21.2 
			 RAF 11.8 12.0 13.5 13.4 
			  Note: Percentages exclude those either preparing for, or recovering from, deployments. 
		
	
	
		
			  Percentage of trained strength of Regular Forces deployed on operations and other military tasks( 1)  during 2003-04 
			   April to June  July to September  October to December  January to March 
			 Naval Service 18.7 12.8 14.0 17.7 
			 Army 46.9 23.2 22.9 22.6 
			 RAF 16.5 13.0 12.9 12.1 
			 Note: 1. Percentages exclude those either preparing for, or recovering from, deployments. 
		
	
	
		
			  Percentage of trained strength of Regular Forces deployed on operations and other military tasks( 1)  during 2002-03 
			   April to June  July to September  October to December  January to March 
			 Naval Service 17.5 13.0 16.5 28.5 
			 Army 24.6 23.9 32.5 55.6 
			 RAF 12.6 10.9 19.1 21.8 
			  Note:  1. Percentages exclude those either preparing for, or recovering from, deployments. 
		
	
	
		
			  Percentage of trained strength of Regular Forces deployed on operations and other military tasks( 1)  during 2001-02 
			   April to June  July to September  October to December  January to March 
			 Naval Service 9.5 8.4 16.7 15.7 
			 Army 21.8 25.6 26.3 23.9 
			 RAF 11.9 12.2 13.6 13.1 
			  Notes: 1. 2001-02 figures include personnel on Exercise SAIF SAREEA II. 2. Percentages exclude those either preparing for, or recovering from, deployments. 
		
	
	Figures for the number of Service personnel deployed in Northern Ireland at 1 April each year since 1999 are shown in the following table. The figures given for the number of Army personnel differ from those published in Table 7.4 of UK Defence Statistics 2005; during the completion of an in-depth analysis of Northern Ireland Forces Levels for the International Monitoring Commission, certain anomalies became apparent which necessitated a revision of previously published figures. Figures for years prior to 1999 are unavailable.
	
		
			   All Services  Naval Service  Army( 1)  RAF 
			 1999 15,110 180 (3)13,780 1,150 
			 2000 14,310 180 (3)13,070 1,060 
			 2001 13,570 180 12,310 1,080 
			 2002 13,750 180 12,530 1,050 
			 2003 13,690 30 (3)12,270 1,390 
			 2004 12,090 (2)430 (3)10,360 1,300 
			 2005 10,570 30 9,630 900 
			 2006 9,090 10 8,160 920 
			 (1) Army figures include the Royal Irish Regiment (Home Service).  (2) Naval Service figure at April 2004 includes personnel from 45 Commando Royal Marines. (3) Denotes revised.

Eurofighter Exports

Nick Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the possible implications of  (a) the sale to Saudi Arabia of Eurofighter Typhoon and  (b) associated training support on the planned dates for Royal Air Force operational declarations; and what level of contribution will be given by his Department in order to facilitate the deal and for training purposes.

Adam Ingram: The sale of Typhoon aircraft to the Royal Saudi Air Force (RSAF) and the provision of a training support package will not affect Typhoon's operational employment dates with the RAF. Negotiations are ongoing concerning the training support package for the RSAF.

Explosive Remnants

David Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what budget he has allocated to dealing with explosive remnants of war in each of the last three years, broken down by theatre of operation.

Des Browne: holding answer 17 March 2006
	We do not allocate a discrete budget for dealing with explosive remnants of war. This activity is a routine part of any military operation to ensure that friendly forces are protected and that normality is restored to the local civilian population as quickly as possible. Explosive Ordnance Disposal teams have deployed as an integral part of UK forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Balkans.
	The costs are included in that provided for operations from the Treasury.

Harrier Fleet

John Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the impact of further extended deployment of Harrier jets in Afghanistan beyond March 2007 on the deep maintenance and upgrade programme of the Harrier fleet.

Adam Ingram: The Harrier 'depth' facility at RAF Cottesmore is specifically designed to provide the flexibility to absorb urgent tasking in addition to scheduled maintenance and future upgrade work. It has been assessed that there will be no impact on the joint maintenance and upgrade programme if a further extension to Harrier deployment in Afghanistan beyond March 2007 becomes an approved operational requirement.

Harrier Fleet

John Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the availability rate is of the Harrier jets deployed in Afghanistan.

Adam Ingram: The planned availability rate for the six Harrier GR7s currently deployed in Afghanistan has, and continues to be, met. It would not be appropriate to reveal the amount of hours or tasking this includes, as to do so could compromise the safety of coalition forces.

Iraq

Michael Moore: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 22 May 2006,  Official Report, column 1321W, on Iraq, how many  (a) UK and  (b) coalition (i) civilian and (ii) military personnel have been (A) killed and (B) injured in each attack in the Iraqi provinces of Al Basrah, Al Muthanna, Dhi Qar and Maysan since January 2006.

Des Browne: The following table shows the number of Coalition military personnel who have died in Multi-National Division (South East) and been classed as killed in action, including as a result of hostile action, between January and June 2006, broken down by province.
	
		
			   Basra  Maysan  Muthanna  Dhi Qar 
			 January 1 1 — — 
			 February — 2 — — 
			 March (1)1 — — — 
			 April 1 — — (1)4 
			 May 9 — — (1)1 
			 June — — — (1)1 
			 (1) Non-UK fatality. 
		
	
	The following table shows the number of Coalition military and civilian personnel wounded as a result of hostile action and treated at the Shaibah Role 3 facility in Iraq in between January and June 2006. These records are kept for operational medical planning and do not include information on where each injury occurred and in what incident nor on the nationality of non-UK personnel treated.
	
		
			   UK military  UK civilian  Non-UK military  Non-UK civilian 
			 January 5 — 2 — 
			 February 1 — — 1 
			 March 2 — 3 5 
			 April 7 2 1 — 
			 May 11 — 1 — 
			 June 2 — 3 — 
		
	
	Information on numbers of UK military and civilian personnel casualties in Iraq is published on the Ministry of Defence website at:
	http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FactSheets/Operations Factsheets/OperationsInIraqBritishCasualties.htm

Iraq

Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which companies applied to run the Occupational Authority's Media Network in Iraq; and what criteria were used in deciding who would be awarded the contract.

Des Browne: This is a matter for the United States Government.

Iraq

David Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many soldiers who have served in Iraq since 2003 have subsequently resigned from the armed forces in each of the last three years.

Derek Twigg: holding answer 11 September 2006
	The data is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

Iraq/Afghanistan

Peter Bone: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contingency plans have been made by the Government in case the level of conflict involving British troops in Iraq and Afghanistan escalates.

Des Browne: holding answer 13 September 2006
	As a matter of course, the Government, with their international partners where appropriate maintains a range of contingency plans for all operational theatres where UK troops are deployed, including Iraq and Afghanistan.

Joint Personnel Administration

Nick Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many RAF personnel were affected by pay inaccuracies in June 2006.

Derek Twigg: In the June 2006 pay run 485 RAF personnel, just over one per cent. of the RAF population were affected by inaccuracies, primarily in respect of specialist pay.

Joint Personnel Administration

Mark Harper: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 25 July 2006,  Official Report, column 1538W, on Joint Personnel Administration, how many complaints the Armed Forces Joint Personnel Administration Agency's internal complaints system received in each month since March 2006 in regard to mispayment under the system; and how many  (a) are still outstanding and  (b) have been resolved.

Derek Twigg: holding answer 13 September 2006
	The following table contains the number of complaints received, resolved and outstanding, under the Armed Forces Joint Personnel Administration Agency's internal complaints system, for each month since April 2006. There are no figures for March as the first JPA Pay Run was in April. Additional resources have been allocated to address the outstanding complaints with a target date of 1 October 2006 for their reduction of the backlog to a normal level of work in hand.
	
		
			  Month  Total( 1)  Resolved  Outstanding 
			 April 18 18 0 
			 May 48 41 7 
			 June 120 70 50 
			 July 139 46 93 
			 August 78 8 70 
			 September(2) 16 2 14 
			 Total 419 185 234 
			 (1) The vast majority of complaints involve mispayments. At present it is not possible to differentiate between the types of complaint and therefore there may be some included that do not fall into this category. (2) As at 8 September 2006.

Landing Ships Dock (Auxiliary) Project

Gerald Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he plans to publish the findings of his Department's lessons learned study following the decision to terminate the contract with Swan Hunter for the Landing Ships Dock (Auxiliary) Project.

Adam Ingram: holding answer 13 September 2006
	Preparations have begun for the lessons learned review into the Landing Ships Dock (Auxiliary) project. It is intended to make the outcome of the findings publicly available, after the National Audit Office have conducted their value for money study into the project.

Low Flying Aircraft

Robert Walter: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many complaints concerning low flying aircraft activity in North Dorset have been recorded in the last 12 months; and what plans he has to minimise the disturbance caused by low flying military aircraft.

Derek Twigg: holding answer 13 September 2006
	Over the period 1 September 2005 to 31 August 2006, 143 complaints have been recorded with the location given as "Dorset".
	Low flying training is always conducted in such a way as to minimise, as far as possible, disturbance to those on the ground. To this end operations by fast jet aircraft in the low flying system are restricted in terms of both minimum height and maximum speed, and transit flying by helicopters is conducted at a minimum of 100 feet, unless specially authorised.

Medals

Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 
	(1)  which  (a) individual and  (b) organisation was responsible for deciding that the qualifying period for the award of the Naval General Service Medal and/or clasp for Canal Zone service would not be fulfilled by 30 days' aggregated service; and when that decision was taken;
	(2)  for what reasons the criterion for awarding the Suez Canal Zone Naval General Service Medal and/or clasp requires the 30-day qualifying period of service in the zone to have been continuous.

Derek Twigg: holding answer 27 April 2006
	A sub-committee of the Committee on the Grant of Honours Decorations and Medals, which is an inter-departmental committee administered on behalf of the Government by the ceremonial Secretariat of the Cabinet Office, took the decision on the qualifying service required for an award of the Naval General Service Medal and/or clasp for Canal Zone service. It is not possible to respond to the detailed questions, as MOD is not the holder of this committee's records.

Middle East

Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what categories of military material have been transported from the US to Israel via the UK since 1 January; and whether these included depleted uranium material.

Des Browne: holding answer 13 September 2006
	The Government routinely withholds details of Dangerous Air Cargo transported as this would be prejudicial to international relations and UK Defence interests.

Middle East

David Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the UN on the possibility of the UK providing manpower to the multilateral force in the Lebanon.

Des Browne: holding answer 13 September 2006
	We have been in continual discussion with the UN regarding UK contributions to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL).
	At a United Nations meeting held in New York on 17 August 2006 to scope support for an expanded UNIFIL, attended by over 50 countries, we identified a range of UK air and maritime assets and other military facilities, which could potentially be called on to support UN operations in Lebanon, depending on the UN's requirements. On 7 September 2006 we received a letter from Kofi Annan formally requesting UK maritime assistance for the interim maritime task force. HMS York is now assisting the Italian-led interim maritime taskforce.
	Subject to the approval of the Government of Lebanon, there is strong international support for the UK to lead an interim cell in Lebanon to co-ordinate support to the Lebanese armed forces and Security Sector Reform (SSR). In parallel, there will be a need to work with international partners to establish a longer term international SSR structure.

Middle East

Philip Hollobone: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what  (a) nature and  (b) extent of UK armed forces involvement is in the international peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon.

Des Browne: holding answer 13 September 2006
	The UK is contributing HMS York to the Temporary Naval Task Force requested by the UN, which is patrolling off the coast of Lebanon. The force, led by the Italians, will remain in place until relieved by a German led UN Task Force in four weeks time.
	Subject to the approval of the Government of Lebanon, there is strong international support for the UK to lead an interim cell in Lebanon to co-ordinate support to the Lebanese armed forces and Security Sector Reform.
	There are no plans for further contributions.

Military Equipment

Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what equipment belonging to the UK armed forces was positioned within five miles of the village of Southmoor, Oxfordshire on  (a) 17 and  (b) 18 July 2003.

Des Browne: holding answer 14 July 2006
	We do not maintain records of the location of individual pieces of military equipment with a precision sufficient to answer the Question. There are no defence establishments located within a five mile radius of Southmoor, although there is an Army site at Abingdon, around seven miles by road from the village. 612 Volunteer Gliding School is also based at Abingdon and provides cadets with gliding instruction, usually at the weekend; records indicate that flying did not take place on the dates in question.

Military Material (Shipment Costs)

Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 
	(1)  what the cost is of shipping a given amount of military material in containers to a given United Kingdom destination by  (a) military train and  (b) a fleet of container lorries;
	(2)  what criteria are used when deciding whether to send military container shipments by  (a) rail and  (b) road to destinations within the United Kingdom.

Adam Ingram: There is no standard comparable unit cost of transporting military material by road or rail. Actual cost will vary substantially according to the route taken, the distance travelled, the nature of the cargo and the size of the consignment. The choice of movement by rail or road will depend not just on cost but on a number of factors including the priority of the requirement and the availability of suitable road and rail infrastructure.

Military Material (Shipment Costs)

Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of military containers shipped from the United Kingdom for Operation Telic were sent to their ports of embarkation by  (a) rail and  (b) road; and what the average cost per unit was for these internal United Kingdom journeys.

Adam Ingram: holding answer 18 September 2006
	Over the past 12 months, approximately 30 per cent. of military containers for Operation Telic (Op Telic) were moved to the port of embarkation by rail and 70 per cent. by road. Details for the earlier years of Op Telic could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
	Transportation costs vary substantially according to the route taken, the distance travelled, the nature of the cargo and the size of the consignment. The choice of movement by rail or road depends, however, not just on cost, but also other factors such as the priority of the requirement and the availability of suitable road and rail infrastructure: for example, the majority of journeys in support of Op Telic were to Southampton docks which does not have the network capacity to offer the MOD a rail service.
	In simple terms, over the last 12 months, the average price per container for journeys using rail services from the original location to the ports of embarkation was £63 and similarly using road services, £227. However, this cost does not include any allowance for the additional costs of using rail paid by the MOD under its enabling contract with English, Welsh and Scottish Railways.

Military Material (Shipment Costs)

Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements are in place to ensure that the internal United Kingdom transportation of military containers by  (a) rail and  (b) road is carried out by the most economical means.

Adam Ingram: The Ministry of Defence has an enabling contract for the movement of military containers by rail and another for their movement by road. Military containers are also moved using ad-hoc commercial road arrangements. The best value-for-money solution is selected depending on the individual circumstances of each requirement.

Military Material (Shipment Costs)

Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is on Defence Storage and Distribution Agency rail operations in respect of  (a) keeping them in-house and  (b) out-sourcing them to private contractors.

Adam Ingram: The Department currently has no plans to outsource rail operations on Defence Storage and Distribution Agency sites to private contractors, although the situation is kept under review to ensure best value for money for the taxpayer.

Operation Telic

Mark Lancaster: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many casualties have been recorded on Operation Telic whilst using  (a) Warrior and  (b) Snatch armoured vehicles.

Des Browne: holding answer 15 June 2006
	Centrally available records on casualties on Operation Telic capture the nature and seriousness of the injuries incurred, but do not always record whether the injuries were incurred while using Snatch or Warrior armoured vehicles. The circumstances surrounding each significant incident involving personnel using Warrior and Snatch armoured vehicles are, however, subject to immediate scrutiny at Unit level. This includes an analysis of the protection offered by the equipment involved and the effectiveness of current tactics, techniques and procedures. Where appropriate, lessons related to equipment are passed to the Chain of Command.
	Information on fatalities and casualties incurred by UK forces on Operation Telic is published on the MOD website at:
	http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/InDepth/Uk MilitaryOperationsInIraq.htm.

Pardons

Mark Harper: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he plans to grant pardons for those First World War soldiers that were convicted of capital crimes, but not executed.

Derek Twigg: It is intended that the proposed statutory pardon will remove the particular dishonour that execution for crimes such as cowardice and desertion brought to individuals and their families. There are no plans to extend the pardons to those soldiers convicted of capital crimes but not executed or to those executed for crimes such as murder and treason.

Private Military Companies

Nick Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what guidelines have been given to members of UK armed forces in their dealings with private military companies in  (a) Iraq and  (b) Afghanistan contracted by (i) coalition states and (ii) non-governmental organisations.

Des Browne: UK armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are reminded, through the Ministry of Defence in-theatre guidance of the need to regulate, limit and report contact with Private Military Companies (PMCs). We do recognise, however, that a wide range of PMCs operate in Iraq and Afghanistan, including those contracted by members of the coalition and non-governmental organisations, and that their employees are unavoidably encountered by our military personnel during the course of their duties. We also recognise that, to minimise risk, our forces need to be aware of where PMCs operate.

RAF

Peter Bone: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the average age was of each type of aircraft flown by the RAF in each of the last 10 years.

Adam Ingram: This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

RAF

Peter Bone: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the planned level of trained RAF personnel was in each of the last 10 years; and what the planned levels are for each of the next five years.

Adam Ingram: The requirement for trained Royal Air Force personnel in each of the last 10 years was:
	
		
			  As at 1 April  Number 
			 1997 56,450 
			 1998 54,530 
			 1999 53,020 
			 2000 51,900 
			 2001 51,360 
			 2002 49,720 
			 2003 49,370 
			 2004 49,570 
			 2005 48,400 
			 2006 46,910 
		
	
	As previously announced to the House, the Royal Air Force is currently drawing down to around 41,000 by April 2008. Future forecast trained manpower requirement figures beyond that date are not published because they are subject to constant change. The figures for each of the next two years are:
	
		
			  As at 1 April  Number 
			 2007 44,610 
			 2008 41,440 
			 Notes: 1. Figures are for UK Regular Forces and therefore exclude full-time reservists and mobilised reservists. 2. All figures have been rounded to the nearest 10.

Royal Irish Regiment

Mark Harper: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the troop levels are for each battalion in the Royal Irish Regiment; what the planned numbers are for each of the next three years; and if he will make a statement.

Adam Ingram: holding answer 18 September 2006
	The Royal Irish Regiment (R IRISH) currently has one General Service battalion (1 R IRISH) earmarked for world-wide duties and three Home Service Battalions (2, 3 and 4 R IRISH), which serve only in Northern Ireland.
	As at 1 September 2006, there were some 500 personnel in 1 R IRISH, some 880 personnel in 2 R IRISH, some 910 personnel in 3 R IRISH and some 930 personnel in 4 R IRISH. In addition to the Battalions there are also some 290 R IRISH Home Service personnel who work at the Regimental Headquarters, Depot or attached to other units within the Province.
	The Home Service battalions were specifically raised for operations in support of the police in Northern Ireland. As announced by the Secretary of State for Defence in August 2005, the Home Service battalions will disband by 31 July 2007, having successfully completed the task for which they were raised. The General Service Battalion (1 R IRISH) is unaffected and they (and the Royal Irish element of the Territorial Army (The Royal Irish Rangers)) will continue the traditions of the Regiment.

Self-harm

Joan Humble: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the terms of reference are for his study on the causal factors of self-harm; what tendering process was undertaken to employ independent experts to conduct the study; and what his target dates for  (a) completion and  (b) publication of the report are.

Derek Twigg: The study was split into three consecutive phases, each one dependent on the successful completion of the preceding phase. Phase One, to identify precipitating factors for deliberate self-harm among soldiers, with an overall objective to provide a structured interview protocol to investigate self-harm in the military community. Phase Two, to retrospectively match each identified case with an appropriately matched control group, and Phase Three, to evaluate the extent to which risk factors and risk profiles identified in Phases One and Two could be used as a marker for deliberate self-harm.
	All three phases were to include military community psychiatric workers, under the direction of the Army Suicide Prevention Working Group (ASPWG), supported by suitable external subject matter expertise. The Directorate of Army Personnel Strategy commissioned the provision of external experts from research funds.
	The statement of requirement for Phase One of the Study and an invitation to tender for the work was sent to three independent academic experts. Only two bids were received, one from Imperial College and the other from King's College. The bids were assessed in accordance with current MOD competitive tendering guidelines, and the contract was awarded to Imperial College.
	Phase One of the study began in April 2004, with an expected completion date of June 2005. However, as there were far fewer cases of deliberate self harm over the period than statistically predicted, this resulted in insufficient numbers of volunteers coming forward to be interviewed, the completion date of Phase One was extended until December 2005. Despite this extension, the numbers of those interviewed was considered to be insufficient for the purpose of the study.
	The results were presented to the ASPWG in December 2005 where it was decided that the study could not progress on the basis that there were too few cases of self-harm over the period to provide a credible result for Phase One. Therefore there was insufficient data to inform the subsequent Phases.
	A summary of the findings of Phase One was submitted to the British Medical Journal (BMJ) and presented to the Royal Society of Medicine Symposium in January. The BMJ have since declined to publish these findings, due to the size of the sample used.

Special Forces Jump Course

Gerald Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 
	(1)  whether he plans to provide radio equipment for all students on the Special Forces Jump Course at Brize Norton;
	(2)  whether he has received any requests from any members of staff at Integrated Project Teams for the purchase of radios for the students on the Special Forces Jump Course at Brize Norton before November 2005.

Adam Ingram: holding answer 13 September 2006
	There are currently no plans to provide military trainees undertaking parachute training at RAF Brize Norton with radio equipment, but my officials are investigating the feasibility of radio use for the transmission of routine information. It is expected that if radios were used, they would not be used in emergency situations due to the risk of confusion when more than one parachutist is involved.
	Details of requests made by members of staff at Integrated Project Teams for the purchase of radios are not recorded centrally. I am aware of two working level requests that have been made previously, in July 2000 and November 2003, for the provision of radios to support some early stage parachute training. Competing priorities on the defence equipment budget meant that funding was not available.

Submarines

Willie Rennie: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration is being given to improving the night vision capabilities of Trafalgar class submarines.

Adam Ingram: holding answer 13 September 2006
	There are no current plans to improve the night vision capability of Trafalgar Class submarines, though the requirement is kept under review.

Suez Campaign

Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 
	(1)  why  (a) questions (i) 65386 and (ii) 65389, on the Suez Canal Zone campaign, tabled for named day answer on 27 April and  (b) question 72193, on those questions, tabled for named day answer on 23 May, has not been substantively answered;
	(2)  when he will reply to the question  (a) 65386 and  (b) 65389, on the Suez Canal Zone campaign, tabled for named day answer on 27 April 2006.

Derek Twigg: holding answers 4 July 2006 and 23 May 2006
	I replied to the hon. Member earlier. It is regretted that it has taken so long to respond to the hon. Member's questions.

Trident

Keith Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much it will cost to maintain the Trident weapons system between 2007 and 2020.

Des Browne: The annual expenditure on capital and running costs of the Trident nuclear deterrent, including costs for the Atomic Weapons Establishment, is expected to be between 5 and 5.5 per cent. of the Defence budget in 2006-07 and 2007-08. Spending plans for subsequent years will be set as part of the Government's Spending Review process.

TUPE Obligations

John Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will suspend  (a) the round of redundancies at the Defence Aviation Repair Agency and  (b) the transfer of Tornado work to RAF Marham until the implications of compliance with TUPE regulations have been assessed.

Adam Ingram: holding answer 18 September 2006
	In my letter of 25 July 2006 I explained to you that CE DARA had temporarily suspended the current redundancy programme pending clarity on the TUPE issues, and that the drawdown of DARA's Fast jet business at St. Athan would continue as planned. This remains the position. I have now placed a copy of that letter in the Library of the House.

VC Programme

John Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress there has been on the market testing of the VC10 programme at St. Athan; and whether this took into account the full application of the Two Tier Workforce Regulations.

Adam Ingram: holding answer 18 September 2006
	Good progress has been made in work to market test the VC10 operating unit at St. Athan; MOD's intentions, in line with legal requirements and the Government's policy, are that industry will need to consider the implications of the TUPE Regulations and the Code of Practice on Workforce Matters (the Cabinet Office document setting out the policy for addressing the so called "two tier workforce issues") in their purchase proposals.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

Judicial Review

David Amess: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs pursuant to the answer of 6 July 2006,  Official Report, column 1345W, on judicial review, where information is held indicating on what occasions individuals and organisations have applied for a judicial review of decisions of her Department; and how  (a) hon. Members and  (b) members of the public may have access to that information.

Harriet Harman: The Department does not hold the information referred to centrally. It is contained on individual case files. Those files pre-dating 2000 are likely to have been destroyed in accordance with the Department's policy. The costs of locating and retrieving files would be disproportionate.
	The Administrative Court maintains an electronic database of all applications made for judicial review. This may be searched against the name of any party to the proceedings.
	Any person may request such information from the Administrative Court and the request will be considered under the Freedom of Information Act.

WORK AND PENSIONS

Benefit Payments

Philip Hammond: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much  (a) pension credit,  (b) disability living allowance and  (c) carer's allowance was underpaid due to  (a) fraud,  (b) customer error and  (c) official error in each year for which figures are available.

James Plaskitt: Information is not available for carer's allowance. The available information is in the following table.
	
		
			  Estimates of underpayments of pension credit and disability living allowance 2004-05 
			   Fraud  Customer error  Official error  Total fraud and error 
			   £ million  Percentage  £ million  Percentage  £ million  Percentage  £ million  Percentage 
			 Pension credit 0 0.0 33 0.5 88 1.4 121 2.0 
			 Disability living allowance 0 0.0 190 2.4 10 0.1 200 2.5 
			  Notes: 1. Figures in brackets are underpayments expressed as a proportion of expenditure for that benefit. They are rounded to the nearest 0.1 per cent. 2. Pension credit estimates are rounded to the nearest £1 million, and disability living allowance estimates are rounded to the nearest £10 million (to be consistent with how they were originally published). 3. Estimates are based on sampling exercises and so are subject to sampling and other uncertainties. Sampling uncertainty is expressed in the form of confidence intervals—these have not been provided in these tables. 4. The methodology used does not capture underpayments due to an incorrect decision being made that the claimant was not entitled to benefit. Expenditure that would be paid out to people who have not applied to benefit they would be entitled to is not included as underpayments. 5. Pension credit was introduced in October 2003, so 2004-05 is the only complete year for which pension credit figures are currently available. 6. The most recent review for disability living allowance was carried out for 2004-05—estimates from this review are provided in this table. Results from the previous review in 1996 were carried out under a different methodology so are not considered comparable.

Benefit Payments

Philip Hammond: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much benefit was underpaid in income support to  (a) lone parents and  (b) disabled people in each year for which figures are available; and what amount was underpaid due to (i) fraud, (ii) customer error and (iii) official error in each year.

James Plaskitt: The available information is in the following tables.
	
		
			  Estimates of underpayments for income support disabled/sick and others 
			   Fraud  Customer error  Official error  Total fraud and error 
			   £ million  Percentage  £ million  Percentage  £ million  Percentage  £ million  Percentage 
			 2004-05 1 0.0 23 0.4 44 0.8 68 1.2 
			 2003-04 8 0.1 24 0.4 51 0.9 83 1.5 
			 2002-03 12 0.2 24 0.5 41 0.8 77 1.5 
			 2001-02 12 0.2 25 0.5 41 0.8 79 1.5 
		
	
	
		
			  Estimates of underpayments for income support lone parents 
			   Fraud  Customer error  Official error  Total fraud and error 
			   £ million  Percentage  £ million  Percentage  £ million  Percentage  £ million  Percentage 
			 2004-05 1 0.0 18 0.4 23 0.5 42 0.9 
			 2003-04 3 0.1 23 0.5 29 0.6 54 1.1 
			 2002-03 2 0.0 20 0.4 20 0.4 42 0.9 
			 2001-02 3 0.1 17 0.4 18 0.4 38 0.8 
			  Notes: 1. All figures are underpayments rounded to the nearest £1 million or nearest 0.1 per cent. of expenditure. They are based on sampling exercises and so are subject to sampling and other uncertainties. Sampling uncertainty is expressed in the form of confidence intervals—these have not been provided in these tables. 2. The methodology used does not capture underpayments due to an incorrect decision being made that the claimant was not entitled to benefit. Expenditure that would be paid out to people who have not applied to benefit they would be entitled to is not included as underpayments. 3. Figures are unavailable for disabled people in income support on their own. Figures presented here cover all income support claimants who are not lone parents (mostly disabled and sick claimants). 4. Figures earlier than 2001-02 were not published in the same format as they were produced from two separate samples—one for official error checks, and one for fraud and customer error checks. These have not been provided.

Child Support

Anne McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many staff are employed by the Child Support Agency; and how many were employed as of 1 July  (a) 1997,  (b) 2000 and  (c) 2005.

James Plaskitt: The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive. He will write to the hon. Member with the information requested.
	 Letter from Stephen Geraghty:
	In reply to your recent Parliamentary question about the Child Support Agency, the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.
	You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many staff are employed by the Child Support Agency; and how many were employed as of 1st July (a) 1997 (b) 2000 and (c) 2005.
	The information requested can be seen in the attached table.
	I hope this information is helpful.
	
		
			  Number of people employed by the Child Support Agency 
			  Date  Number of people in post( 1) 
			 1997-98 (2)8,445 
			   
			  1 July  
			 2000 9,460 
			 2005 10,285 
			 2006 11,545 
			 (1) The figures provided show the actual number of people in post, some of whom may be part-time. (2) Data is not held for 1 July 1997. The figure provided is taken from the 1997-98 Annual Report and Accounts, which shows the average number of employees over the financial year using DATAVIEW method of counting. This method shows the actual numbers of people in post but excludes those on special leave without pay (including career break, maternity leave and other reasons).

Child Support

Danny Alexander: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in what proportion of Child Support Agency cases  (a) the non-resident parent is not paying maintenance and has no know current address and  (b) a maintenance decision has not been made as the non-resident has not been traced.

James Plaskitt: The information requested is not available.

Child Support

Jim Cousins: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what conditions and requirements apply to existing  (a) Child Support Agency (CSA) claimants and  (b) parents making payments migrating to the new rules for CSA payments.

James Plaskitt: Child Support legislation allows an old scheme case to transfer to the new scheme where there are prescribed links to a new scheme application. A prescribed link is one in which:
	the non-resident parent or parent with care in a new scheme application is the non-resident parent or parent with care in an old scheme maintenance assessment; or
	in benefit cases: where the partner of a non-resident parent in a new scheme application is a non-resident parent in an old scheme maintenance assessment; or
	the partner of a parent with care in a new scheme application is a parent with care in an old scheme maintenance assessment.

Correspondence

David Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will arrange for a reply to the letter dated 5 July 2006 to the Child Support Agency from the hon. Member for Walsall North, reference 1002609585.

James Plaskitt: holding answer 11 September 2006
	The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive. He will write to the hon. Member with the information requested.
	 Letter from Stephen Geraghty:
	In reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about the Child Support Agency the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.
	You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he would arrange for a reply to the letter dated 5(th) July 2006 to the Child Support Agency from the hon. Member for Walsall North, reference 1002609585.
	Jackie Laughton, Head of Client Relations for the Child Support Agency replied to your letter dated 5 July 2006 on 31 August 2006. For ease of reference I have sent copy of her recent letter to you separately and hope you found this response helpful.

Disability Equality

Gordon Marsden: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether he has made an assessment of which policy areas will be considered in his report on progress towards disability equality within the work and pensions policy sectors due to be published in December 2008.

Anne McGuire: All relevant areas of DWP policy will be considered in the report on progress. We will seek an assessment of progress from the principal authorities which deliver services funded or regulated by the Secretary of State including local authorities administering housing benefit, as well as the executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies of the Department for Work and Pensions.
	To inform the report we will gather evidence from survey data, performance indicators and statistics and from further research.

Disability Equality

Gordon Marsden: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps were taken to involve disabled people in the production of his Department's disability equality scheme.

Anne McGuire: My Department has involved disabled people and organisations representing disabled people in the production of its disability equality scheme. Officials in my Department invited seven major organisations (Leonard Cheshire Foundation, MENCAP, MIND, RADAR, RNIB, RNID, SCOPE) to help develop our disability equality scheme. DWP, at both a corporate and agency level, has used existing customer channels and specific events to consult individual customers and organisations, and has a representative from the Disability Rights Commission on its Equality Schemes Working Group. In relation to its employees, DWP has consulted them through internal communications, its staff network group and the departmental trade union.

Disability Living Allowance

Fraser Kemp: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many households in the Sunderland City Council area include a person with a learning disability who receives the care component of disability living allowance at the  (a) highest,  (b) middle and  (c) lowest rate.

Anne McGuire: The administration of disability living allowance is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Disability and Carers Service, Mr. Terry Moran. He will write to the hon. Member with the information requested.
	 Letter from Vivien Hopkins:
	You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many households in the Sunderland City Council area include a person with a learning disability who receives the care component of disability living allowance at the (a) highest (b) middle and (c) lowest rate.
	The Minister for Disabled People, Anne McGuire MP, promised you a substantive reply from the Chief Executive of the Disability and Carers Service. In his absence, I am replying.
	The information available is in the following table:
	
		
			  Recipients of disability living allowance with learning difficulties by rate of care award as at November 2005 in the Sunderland local authority 
			  Care component  Number 
			 Total with care component 1,210 
			   
			 Highest rate 410 
			   
			 Middle rate 200 
			   
			 Lowest rate 610 
			  Notes:  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10. 2. Sunderland city council is the same as Sunderland local authority. 3. Local authorities are assigned by matching postcodes against the relevant ONS postcode directory. 4. Figures are based on the care component condition only. 5. The number of claimants does not equate to the number of households as there may be more than one person in a household with learning difficulties claiming DLA. 6. Figures include cases where the payment has been suspended, for example if they are in hospital.  Source: DWP Information Directorate: Work and Pensions Longitudinal Study 100 per cent. Data.

Identity Fraud

David Ruffley: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he is taking to reduce identity fraud in the benefits system; and what discussions he has had with  (a) the Home Office and  (b) related Government agencies on the subject.

James Plaskitt: The Department for Work and Pensions' (DWP) overall aim is to always establish the correct identity of a person prior to providing a benefit or service.
	Before entitlement to benefit can be considered, an individual and their partner need to satisfy Section 1(1b) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. This requires the customer to provide enough information and evidence to confirm that a national insurance number (NINO) quoted on the claim is their own. Where a customer does not know their NINO, they are required to provide enough information and evidence in order that the correct NINO can be traced. If the customer does not have a NINO, they are required to verify their identity and provide enough information in order that a NINO can be issued.
	We have established secure procedures for the allocation of national insurance numbers to adults, conducting rigorous checks to ensure that adult national insurance numbers are only issued to those who have undergone an evidence of identity interview.
	DWP staff are trained in preventing identity fraud and refer any suspected cases for investigation. DWP prosecutes for identity fraud offences, including attempts to obtain national insurance numbers using false documentation. This forms a useful deterrence against those fraudsters who attempt to infiltrate DWP systems.
	DWP expects to maximise the use of the proposed Identity Card across its businesses when ascertaining an individual's right to benefit and we are working with the Home Office to develop such future applications.
	DWP is represented on the Home Office Identity Fraud Steering Committee which has a remit to implement measures to counter identity fraud. Other representatives of this group include the private sector and other Government Departments such as HMRC with whom we work closely.
	Work is ongoing through this Committee to implement measures against identity fraud that can be put in place in advance of the proposed National Identity Scheme.

Identity Verification

David Ruffley: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what procedures are in place to verify an individual's identity  (a) before he or she is allocated a national insurance number and  (b) before he or she has access to the benefit system.

James Plaskitt: The Department follows a robust process to verify the individual's identity prior to the allocation of a national insurance number (NINO). This process includes a check to ensure that the applicant does not already hold a NINO, and if appropriate will be followed by a face-to-face interview designed to build up a picture of the individual's circumstances. This will involve document examination checks to ensure the authenticity of any documentary evidence provided in support of the application; and corroborative checks with third parties (including other Government Departments) to verify information supplied during the interview.
	Only when Jobcentre Plus is satisfied as to the individual's identity will a NINO be allocated.
	Before entitlement to benefit can be considered an individual and their partner need to satisfy section 1(1B) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 regarding NINO provision. This requires the customer to provide enough information and evidence to confirm that the NINO quoted on the claim is their own. Rigorous checking procedures are built into benefit processes to ensure that the gateway to the benefits system is secure. Anyone who has acquired a NINO does not have automatic access to the benefits system and the use of a NINO in isolation is not sufficient to obtain benefits.
	Where a customer does not know their NINO, they are required to provide enough information and evidence in order that the correct NINO can be traced. If the customer does not have a NINO, they are required to verify their identity and provide enough information in order that a NINO can be issued.

Incapacity Benefit

Neil Gerrard: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of people leaving incapacity benefit began claiming again within a year of leaving the benefit in each of the last five years for which figures are available; what that percentage was  (a) in Pathways to Work pilot areas and  (b) in the rest of the country in each year; and what percentage were aged (i) over 50 and (ii) under 50 years in each year.

Anne McGuire: Pathways was launched in October 2003, in three Jobcentre Plus districts and had rolled out to a further four districts by the end of 2004. The table shows the available information on those who reclaimed incapacity benefit within a year of terminating their previous claim.
	
		
			  Incapacity benefit (IB) terminations in years ending November, where a further claim to IB was made within 52 weeks of termination, by age and area and as a percentage of all reclaims 
			   2000  2001  2002  2003  2004 
			 All areas 21,700 22,500 21,500 21,100 19,100 
			 Percentage of all areas 100 100 100 10 100 
			 50+ 700 700 700 600 (1)400 
			 Percentage of all areas 3 3 3 3 2 
			 Under 50 21,000 21,700 20,800 20,600 18,700 
			 Percentage of all areas 97 96 97 98 98 
			   
			 All Pathways areas 2,300 2,200 2,200 2,400 1,800 
			 Percentage of all areas 11 10 10 11 9 
			 50+ (1)100 (1)100 (2)— (1)100 (2)— 
			 Percentage of all areas (2)— (2)— (2)— (2)— (2)— 
			 Under 50 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,300 1,800 
			 Percentage of all areas 10 10 10 11 9 
			   
			   
			 All other areas 19,400 20,200 19,300 18,700 17,300 
			 Percentage of all areas 89 90 90 89 91 
			 50+ 600 600 700 500 (1)400 
			 Percentage of all areas 3 3 3 2 2 
			 Under 50 18,800 19,600 18,700 18,200 16,900 
			 Percentage of all areas 87 87 87 86 88 
			 (1 )Numbers are based on very few sample cases and subject to a high degree of sampling variation. These should be used as a guide to the current situation only.  (2 )Denotes nil negligible.  Notes:  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred. 2. Totals may not sum due to rounding.  Source: DWP Information Centre, five per cent data.

Incapacity Benefit

Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people have been disqualified from receiving incapacity benefit under section 171 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 in each year between 2000 and 2005, broken down by condition of the claimant.

Anne McGuire: Section 171 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 relates to statutory maternity pay (SMP). Disallowances of incapacity benefit due to receipt of SMP are not recorded centrally and the information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

IT Contracts

Michael Weir: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the value was of each IT contract awarded by his Department in each of the last five years; and who the contractor was in each case.

James Purnell: Over the last five years the IT contracts awarded by the DWP with associated value is as follows:
	
		
			  £ million 
			   Projects  2005-06  2004-05  2003-04  2002-03  2001-02  Total 
			 Accenture Customer Information System 17.370 11.600 2.300 — — 31.270 
			 Accenture Pensions Transformation Project 75.850 33.920 2.910 — — 112.680 
			 Atos Stand Alone Support Applications 2.663 — — — — 2.663 
			 Atos Debt Management 0.117 5.221 0.227 — — 5.565 
			 Atos Working Age Transformation and Change, Benefit Processing Replacement Programme 0.495 — — — — 0.495 
			 Atos Bank Liaison Automation System 0.658 — — — — 0.658 
			 Energis Gsi Anti Virus 0.259 1.463 — — — 1.722 
			 Fujitsu Real Time Pensions Forecasting — 18.051 4.323 — — 22.374 
			 Fujitsu Resource Management — 28.642 — — — 28.642 
			 Computacenter Hardware and Software 8.319 10.297 23.010 66.800 32.900 141.326 
			 IBM Working Age Transformation and Change Benefit Processing Replacement Programme 79.388 35.337 11.805 26.709 — 153.239 
			 IBM Customer Management System — 0.194 32.840 28.460 — 61.494 
			 Oracle Resource Management 5.302 9.982 14.384 — — 29.668 
			 Logica Pensions regulator — 0.649 — — — 0.649 
			 Siemens Central Payments System 54.065 — — — — 54.065 
			 Xansa Work Train Project 0.386 1.076 — — — 1.462 
			 Total  244.872 156.432 91.799 121.969 32.900 647.972

Jobcentre Plus

Julia Goldsworthy: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many Jobcentre Plus offices have reduced their opening hours in each parliamentary constituency in the last 12 months.

Jim Murphy: The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the chief executive of Jobcentre Plus, Lesley Strathie. I have asked her to provide the hon. Member with the information requested.
	 Letter from Lesley Strathie:
	The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question asking how many Jobcentre Plus offices have reduced their opening hours in each parliamentary constituency in the last 12 months. This is something that falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus.
	A total of 73 Jobcentre Plus sites have had a reduction in opening hours since 31 May 2005. For approximately half of these sites, the reduction in hours amounts to less than one day per week. It is not possible to provide information broken down by parliamentary constituency, this information is gathered at a district level. The information available is set out in the attached table, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.
	Jobcentre Plus Offices will normally open from 9.00 am to 5.00 pm every working day with a later opening one day per week to support staff development. The day of the week will vary from office to office depending on local circumstances. (There are a small number of offices, which operate fewer hours meeting local needs, and these are gradually being phased out). Key stakeholders are consulted on how customer services will be delivered when major changes of opening hours are proposed.

Jobcentre Plus

Danny Alexander: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what was  (a) the staffing bill and  (b) the overtime bill for Jobcentre Plus in each year of its operation to date.

Jim Murphy: The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the chief executive of Jobcentre Plus, Lesley Strathie. I have asked her to provide the hon. Member with the information requested.
	 Letter from Lesley Strathie:
	The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question asking what was the (a) staffing bill and (b) the overtime bill for Jobcentre Plus in each year of its operation to date. This is something that falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus.
	The figures for total staff costs from 2002-03 to 2004-05 are taken from the published Jobcentre Plus Annual Report and Accounts, copies of which can be found in the House of Commons library.
	The total staff costs recorded in the annual accounts and the overtime figures in the supporting records for the period 2002-2005 are shown below. The figures for 2005/06 are the unaudited staff and overtime costs from the draft Agency accounts.
	
		
			  £000 
			   2002-03  2003-04  2004-05  2005-06 
			 Staff costs 1,712,111 1,669,766 1,757,687 1,878,128 
			  of which: 
			 Overtime costs 24,373 22,853 18,577 23,583 
		
	
	The total staff costs include the salaries of permanent and casual staff, temporary duties allowance, overtime, superannuation costs and payment for early release schemes. There was an increase in staff costs from 2004-05 to 2005-06 of £120 million despite a headcount reduction of over 3,500 whole time equivalents. The main reasons for this were the increase in employer's pension contributions of £65 million and £60 million to fund early retirements to reduce headcount.

Ministerial Offices

Sarah Teather: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many times his ministerial office has been decorated in each of the last five years.

Anne McGuire: The ministerial office has been redecorated once in the last five years as part of a planned maintenance programme. Part of the ministerial office was redecorated in 2004-05, with the remainder being redecorated in 2005-06. The redecoration covered painting and decorating of the office and did not include replacement of fixtures and fittings.

National Insurance

Philip Hammond: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much time per applicant is allocated for interviews with applicants for national insurance numbers; and what changes to this time allocation  (a) have occurred within the last 12 months and  (b) are planned within the next 12 months.

James Plaskitt: Jobcentre Plus is currently in the process of rolling out a standard model for the Secure National Insurance Number Allocation Process which allocates 40 minutes per applicant.
	Prior to the introduction of this model, there was no fixed allocation of time per applicant.
	The whole of Jobcentre Plus will be using this Secure National Insurance Number Allocation process from the end of July 2006.

National Insurance

Philip Hammond: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of applicants for national insurance numbers were called for face-to-face interviews in the last 12 months for which data are available.

James Plaskitt: Jobcentre Plus conducted face-to-face interviews for 93 per cent. of national insurance number applicants between June 2005 and May 2006, the last 12 months for which data are available
	The remaining 7 per cent. were fast path applicants. Fast path is used for HM Forces, NHS professionals, employers with Home Office approved work permits and people who have sought and been granted asylum in the UK. NINOs are issued to the latter group without interview because the Home Office provide relevant information gathered during IND interviews with asylum seekers to Jobcentre Plus.

National Insurance

Nicholas Clegg: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in the UK are recorded as eligible for a national insurance number; and how many are in issue.

James Plaskitt: No figures are recorded on the number of people in the UK who are eligible to receive a national insurance number. As at July 2006, there are 76.8 million national insurance numbers (NINOs) held on the Departmental Central Index (DCI) (now the Customer Information System (CIS)).
	In order to maintain the integrity of the system (and for benefit purposes) NINOs are not removed. For example, they are retained after a person dies or moves abroad. This is because individuals who move abroad may at some point have a call upon contributions paid while in the UK. In the case of deceased individuals, a partner may make a claim for a contributory benefit, which is dependant on the contribution record of the deceased individual. This means that the number of accounts held on the system accrues as NINOs are allocated each year to all UK children who reach 16 years and persons from abroad requiring a NINO are added.

National Insurance

Lynne Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many national insurance numbers are held on the Department's system; how many of these are active; how many of the remainder relate to deceased persons; and what measures are being taken to identify, monitor and close inactive accounts where appropriate.

James Plaskitt: As at July 2006 there are 76.8 million national insurance numbers (NINOs) held on the Department's Customer Information System (CIS).
	In order to maintain the integrity of the system (and for benefit purposes) NINOs are not removed. For example, they are retained after a person dies or moves abroad. This is because individuals who move abroad may at some point have a call upon contributions paid while in the UK. In the case of deceased individuals, a partner may make a claim for a contributory benefit, which is dependant on the contribution record of the deceased individual. This means that the number of accounts held on the system accrues as NINOs are allocated each year to all UK children who reach 16 years and persons from abroad requiring a NINO are added.
	Deceased persons accounts and those of people aged over 82 years where there has been no activity on the account for the previous three years are classified as inactive and "flagged" so that any activity on those accounts will automatically prompt internal checks to ensure legitimate access.
	The latest available information in respect of deceased persons is for 2003 and was estimated to be 16.5 million.

National Insurance

David Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many cases of suspected illegal immigrants granted national insurance numbers were passed to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate in each quarter since April 1997; and if he will make a statement.

James Plaskitt: holding answer 8 June 2006
	The requested information is only available from April 2005 and is unavailable broken down by quarter. From April 2005 to March 2006, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) notified the Immigration and Nationality Directorate of 2,537 cases where national insurance numbers were allocated to suspected immigration offenders. In addition, 772 cases involving suspect documents that have been refused a NINO were notified to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate by DWP.

National Insurance

Vincent Cable: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many national insurance numbers there have been on  (a) the Departmental Central Index and  (b) National Insurance Recording Systems 1 and 2 in each year since 1997.

James Plaskitt: The National Insurance Recording Systems are administered by HM Revenue and Customs, and are a matter for my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
	As at July 2006, there are 76.8 million national insurance numbers (NINOs) held on the Departmental Central Index (DCI) (now the Customer Information System (CIS)). Prior to this, only approximate figures can be provided. The available information is in the following table.
	
		
			  Approximate number of NINOs held on DCI/CIS 
			  million 
			   Number 
			 1997 66 
			 1998 67 
			 1999 68 
			 2000 69 
			 2001 70 
			 2002 71 
			 2003 72 
			 2004 73 
			 2005 74.5 
			  Note: DCI/CIS holds both NINOs and Child Reference Numbers (CRNs). The proportion of NINOs to CRNs is not available in precise detail for those years. However, a recent scan of CIS has shown that the precise number of NINOs is 76.8 million (July 2006). The precise number of CRNs is 11.7 million. The figures are rounded to the nearest 100,000.

National Insurance

Robert Marshall-Andrews: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many national insurance numbers are in operation for persons over 16 years old in England and Wales.

James Plaskitt: As at July 2006, there are 76.8 million national insurance numbers (NINOs) held on the Departmental Central Index (DCI) (now the Customer Information System (CIS)). These figures relate to the UK, as we are unable to specify separately the numbers for England and Wales.
	In order to maintain the integrity of the system (and for benefit purposes) NINOs are not removed. For example, they are retained after a person dies or moves abroad. This is because individuals who move abroad may at some point have a call upon contributions paid while in the UK. In the case of deceased individuals, a partner may make a claim for a contributory benefit, which is dependant on the contribution record of the deceased individual. This means that the number of accounts held on the system accrues as NINOs are allocated each year to all UK children who reach 16 years and persons from abroad requiring a NINO are added.

National Insurance

David Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many temporary national insurance numbers have been issued in each  (a) month and  (b) quarter since April 2003; and if he will make a statement.

Nicholas Clegg: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps the Government have taken to ensure that temporary national insurance numbers are not used to gain access to  (a) services,  (b) benefits and  (c) forms of identification to which the holder is not entitled; and if he will make a statement.

James Plaskitt: The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) does not issue temporary national insurance numbers (NINO).
	There are exceptional situations where DWP use internal reference numbers in the same format as a NINO to facilitate benefit administration prior to the allocation of a NINO. However, such numbers are not issued to customers. They cannot be used to enter the benefits system, or be used for identification purposes or to gain access to any other services.

Neurological Conditions

Danny Alexander: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the progression into work of people with neurological conditions and the progression into work of incapacity benefit claimants.

Anne McGuire: 11 per cent. of people with neurological conditions who have joined Pathways to Work between October 2003 and February 2006 have progressed into work.
	Information on the number of people with neurological conditions who have progressed into work in the last three years without participating in Pathways is not available.
	We know that a large proportion want to work and so we want to ensure that they are given the opportunity to do so. We do not believe in writing anyone off—one of the key principles of our successful Pathways to Work programme is inclusion and support for all.
	Personal advisers tailor packages of help and support for individuals with a range of health problems, including neurological conditions. In Pathways to Work areas, Condition Management Programmes aim to help people manage their health condition or disability more effectively, so that they can get the jobs they want.
	 Notes:
	1. The statistics quoted in this response are taken from the Pathways to Work Evaluation Database.
	2. Data are to the end of February 2006.
	3. Data include information for the extension to existing customers.

Neurological Conditions

Danny Alexander: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement about percentage rates of people with neurological conditions who had been claiming incapacity benefit for over 12 months when starting work-focused interviews, compared to other people claiming incapacity benefit for over 12 months.

Anne McGuire: Mandatory work-focused interviews for incapacity benefit customers occur eight weeks after the start of their benefit claim. Therefore no one who started the mandatory work-focused interview process has been in receipt of incapacity benefits for over 12 months.
	The exception to this is participants in the mandatory extension of Pathways to Work. They are identified as those being in receipt of benefit between one and three years at the time the mandatory extension commenced. Therefore they have all been in receipt of incapacity benefits for over 12 months.
	Only in the first 12 months after roll out would voluntary participants in Pathways to Work have been in receipt of incapacity benefits for less than 12 months. After that period they will all have been in receipt of incapacity benefits for over 12 months as all fresh claims will have been captured by work-focused interviews through Pathways to Work.
	Establishing percentage rates of people with neurological conditions who had been claiming incapacity benefit for over 12 months when volunteering for work-focused interviews compared to other people claiming incapacity benefit for over 12 months in that initial period can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

New Deal

Philip Hammond: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of known job entrants from  (a) new deal for young people and  (b) new deal 25 plus started jobs that were not sustained beyond 13 weeks duration in each year since the programmes began.

Jim Murphy: The information is in the following table.
	
		
			  Percentage of known job entrants who started jobs that were not sustained beyond 13 weeks 
			  Percentage 
			   New deal for young people  New deal 25 plus 
			 1998 13 21 
			 1999 18 20 
			 2000 17 16 
			 2001 18 17 
			 2002 19 20 
			 2003 19 20 
			 2004 22 21 
			 2005 24 23 
			  Notes: 1. Annual data refer to January to December each year, except new deal 25 plus data for 1998 which are from July to December. For both programmes data for 2005 are from January to November. 2. A sustained job is measured as one where there is no subsequent jobseeker's allowance claim within 13 weeks of the job start.  Source: Information Directorate, DWP

Pathways to Work

Andrew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what consultation there will be on local partnership arrangements in preparation for the start of provider-led Pathways to Work provision in  (a) Oxfordshire,  (b) Berkshire and  (c) Buckinghamshire from April 2008.

Jim Murphy: Provider-led Pathways is scheduled to start in the Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Berkshire district, along with 15 other districts, as part of the final phase of rollout in April 2008.
	The Jobcentre Plus Pathways to Work team will hold provider events following the publication of the pre-qualification questionnaire and the invitation to tender to promote local partnership working later this year. They will also work with districts to promote Pathways with local strategic partners in order to encourage them to work in partnership with Pathways providers. They will then run a series of joint workshops with providers, local strategic partners and each district. Partnership working will also be encouraged as part of the local start-up arrangements prior to go-live in April 2008.

Post Office Card Account

Jim Cousins: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many post office card accounts (POCAs) there were in each local authority area in Tyne and Wear in April  (a) 2004,  (b) 2005 and  (c) 2006; and what percentage of customers receiving (i) non-contributory jobseeker's allowance, (ii) the basic state pension and (iii) pension credit did so via the POCA in each area at each date.

James Plaskitt: Information is not available in the format requested. The following table shows the information which is available.
	
		
			   Jobseeker's allowance  State pension  Pension credit 
			Accounts paid by POCA   Accounts paid by POCA   Accounts paid by POCA 
			  Local authority  Total accounts  Number  Percentage  Total accounts  Number  Percentage  Total accounts  Number  Percentage 
			  April 2004  
			 Gateshead 3,230 80 2.6 31,030 1,260 4.1 12,280 1,210 9.8 
			 Newcastle upon Tyne 5,530 70 1.2 34,840 1,050 3 15,130 1,180 7.8 
			 North Tyneside 3,340 30 0.8 33,090 960 2.9 10,880 720 6.6 
			 South Tyneside 3,900 100 2.5 24,220 990 4.1 10,180 1,110 10.9 
			 Sunderland 5,280 390 7.4 39,980 1,820 4.6 17,640 2,010 11.4 
			   
			  April 2005  
			 Gateshead 3,300 480 14.6 31,230 9,020 28.9 13,410 6,010 44.8 
			 Newcastle upon Tyne 5,100 1,130 22.2 34,740 9,260 26.7 16,440 7,260 44.1 
			 North Tyneside 3,120 500 16.1 32,950 8,400 25.5 12,230 4,830 39.5 
			 South Tyneside 4,040 760 18.8 24,030 7,780 32.4 11,260 5,230 46.4 
			 Sunderland 4,900 1,080 22.1 40,570 13,500 33.3 19,290 9,290 48.2 
			   
			  April 2006  
			 Gateshead 3,360 680 20.2 31,240 8,660 27.7 13,350 6,020 45.1 
			 Newcastle upon Tyne 5,540 1,330 24 34,520 8,990 26 16,350 7,350 45 
			 North Tyneside 3,310 570 17.4 32,870 8,020 24.4 12,340 4,920 39.8 
			 South Tyneside 3,930 810 20.5 23,750 7,360 31 11,320 5,300 46.8 
			 Sunderland 6,070 1,230 20.3 40,380 12,990 32.2 19,410 9,400 48.4 
		
	
	Figures refer to benefit and pension payment accounts live and in payment on the specified date. People in receipt of more than one benefit/pension have been counted for each separate benefit/pension in payment. People who have their benefit/pension combined and paid at the same time have only been counted through the paying benefit.

Post Office Card Account

Philip Hammond: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his latest estimate is of the number of Post Office card account holders who are undischarged bankrupts.

James Plaskitt: holding answer 13 September 2006
	The Department for Work and Pensions has made no estimate of the number of Post Office card account holders who are undischarged bankrupts.

Poverty

James Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of  (a) children,  (b) people and  (c) elderly people in (i) rural areas and (ii) England live in poverty.

Jim Murphy: The information for 1996-97 and for 2004-05 is in the following tables.
	
		
			  Proportion of children, all individuals and pensioners falling below 60 per cent. of the contemporary median income, in rural areas: England, 1996-97 
			  Percentages 
			   Before housing costs  After housing costs 
			 Children 19 27 
			 All individuals 16 21 
			 Pensioners 23 27 
		
	
	
		
			  Proportion of children, all individuals and pensioners falling below 60 per cent. of the contemporary median income, in rural areas: England, 2004/05 
			  Percentages 
			   Before housing costs  After housing costs 
			 Children 13 20 
			 All individuals 13 16 
			 Pensioners 20 17 
			  Notes: 1. A pensioner is a person of state pension age or above (65 for men, 60 for women). 2. The urban/rural marker information is not available on a consistent basis on the data for Scotland and Wales.  Source: Family Resource Survey 
		
	
	
		
			  Proportion of children, all individuals and pensioners falling below 60 per cent. of the contemporary median income: England, 1996/97 
			  Percentages 
			   Before housing costs  After housing costs 
			 Children 24 33 
			 All individuals 18 25 
			 Pensioners 22 28 
		
	
	
		
			  Proportion of children, all individuals and pensioners falling below 60 per cent. of the contemporary median Income: England, 2004/05 
			  Percentages 
			   Before housing costs  After housing costs 
			 Children 19 28 
			 All individuals 16 20 
			 Pensioners 20 17 
			  Notes: 1. A pensioner is a person of state pension age or above (65 for men, 60 for women). 2. All results shown here are single-year values. Results for England may differ from the published results. Published results are presented as three-year averages to ensure comparability with the other Government office regions.  Source:  Family Resource Survey

Questionnaires

David Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many  (a) questionnaires,  (b) statistical inquiries and  (c) investigations have been carried out wholly or partly at public expense on behalf of or by his Department or public bodies for which he is responsible in each year since 1997; and what the (i) nature, (ii) purpose and (iii) cost was of each.

Anne McGuire: This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

Taxation (Disabled People)

Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether he plans to publish the Tax Benefit Model Tables showing marginal deduction rates for disabled people as part of his Disability Equality Scheme.

Anne McGuire: holding answer 13 September 2006
	The Department for Work and Pensions is due to publish its Disability Equality Scheme on 1 December 2006. We are currently considering the appropriate content of the scheme.

Workless Older People

Nigel Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the number of people below the state pension age who are not in work who are willing and able to work.

Jim Murphy: The most commonly used definition of people who are not in work who are willing and able to work is the International Labour Office (ILO) definition of unemployment. The ILO unemployed are people who are without a job; want a job; have actively sought work in the last four weeks; and are available to start work in the next two weeks.
	The latest figures for ILO unemployment (seasonally adjusted) are from the Labour Force Survey and cover the period March to May 2006. This shows that there were 1,623,000 people below state pension age who are not in work who are willing and able to work.
	The Government's ambition is to provide employment opportunities for all not only by helping the ILO unemployed get a job but also by helping the economically inactive—generally those who are not looking for work—to consider work and help them into work.
	The combination of macroeconomic stability and welfare to work policies has been successful in achieving high employment rates. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), in their re-assessment of their Jobs Strategy, identified the UK as a successful performer. Their latest (2006) Employment Outlook also shows that the UK has the best combination of low ILO unemployment and inactivity rates of all the major G8 countries.

HOME DEPARTMENT

Antisocial Behaviour Orders

Kerry McCarthy: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many antisocial behaviour orders have been issued in Bristol since 1 June 2000; and how many are in force.

Hazel Blears: A table giving a breakdown by the criminal justice system area and local government authority area in which prohibitions are imposed within antisocial behaviour orders (ASBOs) is available on the Crime Reduction website at www.crimereduction.gov.uk. This table gives data by year since ASBOs were introduced up to 30 June 2005 (latest available).
	ASBO data are collected centrally on the number of orders issued. Information is not available on the number in force at any given time.

Association for Research (Voluntary & Community)

Greg Hands: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what funding his Department has given to the Association for Research in the Voluntary and Community Sector in each year since 1997; and what plans it has for further such funding.

Vernon Coaker: The Association for Research in the Voluntary and Community Sector has been a recipient of Home Office core funding since 1997, when it received £44,414 until 2005-06 when it received £42,033. The Active Communities Directorate (ACD) of the Home Office announced a new strategic funding programme in October 2005, for organisations that could provide a representative and effective 'voice' for the VCS at national level. ARVAC were unsuccessful in their bid for new funding, but as they had received funding in 2005-06 they received a transitional package of funding of £27,000 for 2006-07 to support them in managing the transition. Following the Cabinet reshuffle on 5 May, the Active Communities Directorate (ACD) now forms part of the Office of the Third Sector in the Cabinet Office.

Asylum Seekers

Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many failed asylum seekers have been evicted from their homes in Coventry South before being deported from the UK in the last 12 months.

Liam Byrne: Between 1 January and 31 December 2005, 186 people supported by the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) with addresses within the area of Coventry, South had their support stopped following a final negative decision on their claim for asylum.
	The number of main applicants in receipt of section 4 support in Coventry who had their claims discontinued during this period was 142.
	Responsibility for eviction rests with accommodation providers. NASS does not keep a central record showing the number of evictions which are confirmed. However, NASS pays providers for accommodation occupied by asylum seekers only. Consequently providers are not paid for accommodation occupied without authority.
	Information of the number of unsuccessful asylum seekers who are removed is provided in the quarterly statistics which can be found at:
	http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1/html
	The statistics do not show where a person was living prior to removal and this information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

Asylum Seekers

John Battle: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers are detained in HM Prison Armley, Leeds.

Fiona Mactaggart: From the information available 11 prisoners in Leeds prison have either had an asylum application rejected, or have an asylum application outstanding.

Asylum Seekers

Lynne Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many failed asylum seekers are in receipt of the National Asylum Support Service section 4 support, broken down by  (a) nationality,  (b) accommodation provider,  (c) region and  (d) length of time on section 4 support.

Tony McNulty: As at the end of December 2005 there were 5,181 failed asylum seekers in receipt of section four support. This figure is based on management information.
	The breakdowns are presented in the following tables.
	Section 4 support statistics are published on a quarterly basis. Figures relating to the first quarter of 2006 will be published on 23 May 2006. These will be available from the Libraries of the House and on the Home Office Research, Development and Statistics website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html.
	
		
			  Nationality breakdown 
			  Nationality field  Total 
			 Afghanistan 70 
			 Albania 5 
			 Algeria 30 
			 Angola 30 
			 Armenia 5 
			 Azerbaijan 5 
			 Belarus * 
			 Bosnia-Herzegovina * 
			 Burkina Faso * 
			 Burma (Myanmar) 5 
			 Burundi 30 
			 Cambodia (Kampuchea) * 
			 Cameroon 30 
			 China (People's Republic of China) 55 
			 Congo 170 
			 Congo Democratic Republic (formerly Zaire) 85 
			 Croatia * 
			 Cuba 5 
			 East Timor * 
			 Ecuador 5 
			 Egypt * 
			 Eritrea 460 
			 Estonia * 
			 Ethiopia 130 
			 Gambia * 
			 Georgia 5 
			 Ghana * 
			 Guinea 15 
			 India 15 
			 Iran 305 
			 Iraq 2,960 
			 Israel * 
			 Ivory Coast (Cote d'Ivoire) 30 
			 Jamaica 5 
			 Kenya 15 
			 Kosovo * 
			 Kuwait 5 
			 Latvia * 
			 Lebanon 5 
			 Liberia 15 
			 Libya (Arab Republic) * 
			 Macedonia (former Yugoslav Republic of) * 
			 Malawi * 
			 Malaysia * 
			 Mauritania 5 
			 Mauritius * 
			 Moldova * 
			 Mongolia 5 
			 Montenegro * 
			 Morocco * 
			 Nepal 5 
			 Niger * 
			 Nigeria 20 
			 Pakistan 20 
			 Palestine 55 
			 Poland * 
			 Romania 5 
			 Russia 20 
			 Rwanda 15 
			 Senegal * 
			 Serbia * 
			 Seychelles * 
			 Sierra Leone 20 
			 Somalia 155 
			 South Africa 15 
			 Sri Lanka 25 
			 Stateless Person (Article 1 of 1954 Convention) * 
			 Sudan 120 
			 Swaziland * 
			 Syria 15 
			 Tajikistan * 
			 Tanzania * 
			 Togo 5 
			 Turkey 15 
			 Uganda 20 
			 Ukraine 5 
			 Vietnam 5 
			 Yemen 5 
			 Yugoslavia 5 
			 Zimbabwe 105 
			 Total 5,181 
		
	
	
		
			  Accommodation provider breakdown 
			  Provider field  Total 
			 Angel Group 670 
			 Capital 250 
			 Caradon Estates 950 
			 Clearsprings 430 
			 M&Q 2,485 
			 RCA Sheffield 280 
			 Safehaven 30 
			 YMCA Glasgow 80 
			 YMCA West London 5 
			 Total 5,181 
		
	
	
		
			  Regional breakdown 
			  Region  Total 
			 East Midlands 500 
			 East of England 35 
			 London 980 
			 North East 185 
			  Note:  All figures are rounded to the nearest five, and "*" = 1 or 2 
		
	
	Due to rounding, the total of the numbers in each table may not equate to the figure shown.
	Figures provided for the breakdown of accommodation providers are a snapshot and contract provision is under review.
	Average number of days in accommodation (rounded to the nearest whole) = 279.

Asylum Seekers

Lyn Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  what assessment his Department has made of allegations of persecution of repatriated asylum seekers by the authorities in the Democratic Republic of Congo;
	(2)  whether his Department continues to regard the Democratic Republic of Congo as a country to which it is suitable to repatriate failed asylum seekers.

Tony McNulty: We are aware of allegations such as those raised by the BBC in late 2005 that failed asylum seekers are subject to mistreatment on return. However, we have found that there is no objective evidence to support allegations outside of sources known to be sympathetic to the plight of asylum seekers or who specifically provide assistance to individual Congolese claimants. While it is impossible to rule out the potential for individual officials to act on their own account, we have seen no corroborated evidence that they do so, nor that the Democratic Republic of Congo authorities have a policy of deliberately targeting failed asylum seekers for special attention.
	In early 2006, the UNHCR's Kinshasa Office consulted a number of domestic and international human rights organisations and other relevant NGOs based in the capital about the authorities' treatment of returning failed asylum seekers. The UNHCR inquiries found that apart from encountering questioning and possibly temporary detention, there is no evidence to suggest that returning Congolese nationals face systematic mistreatment or that returning failed asylum seekers are at greater risk of scrutiny by the authorities than any other profile of Congolese national returning home.

Asylum Seekers

Iain Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers there are in each ward in Hartlepool constituency.

Tony McNulty: The number of asylum seekers supported by the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) are published on a quarterly and annual basis, broken down by Government office region and local authority. The next publication covering the first quarter of 2006 will be published on 23 May 2006, and will be available on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics website at:
	http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html

Asylum Seekers

Ashok Kumar: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers who claim to be fleeing persecution on the grounds of their sexual orientation have been  (a) refused and  (b) granted asylum in the UK in the last 10 years.

Liam Byrne: The information requested is not available and could be obtained only by examination of individual case records.

Asylum Seekers

Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum claims have been deemed to be unfounded in each of the last five years.

Liam Byrne: Information on the number of asylum claims deemed to be unfounded is available from 2004 and has been published as part of the public performance target: removing more failed asylum seekers than new anticipated unfounded applications. Copies of this report are available at the IND website:
	http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/6353/aboutus/tippingpoints results.pdf
	The next report covering the second quarter of 2006 will be published on 22 August 2006.

Bail Act

Philip Hollobone: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent assessment he has made of the operation of the Bail Act 1976 in relation to persistent and prolific offenders.

Gerry Sutcliffe: holding answer 18 September 2006
	There has been no assessment of the operation of the Bail Act 1976 in relation to persistent and prolific offenders.
	The Bail Act requires the courts to take into account, among other things, a defendant's previous criminal history when making the remand decision.
	As part of the Prolific and other Priority Offender Programme, launched by the Prime Minister in 2004, the criminal justice agencies are all operating a Premium Service to ensure that those offenders are prioritised through every stage of the criminal justice system.
	The National Premium Service Specification provides guidance that there should be a presumption against use of police bail for prolific and other priority offenders, and that remand or conditional bail should be sought for all such cases. It is, of course, a matter for the court to decide on the remand status of the defendant, based on all the circumstances of the case.
	When a defendant is released on conditional bail, the National Premium Service Specification also requires that the defendant be carefully monitored and that any breach of bail be dealt with robustly.

Biometric Passports

James McGovern: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has considered allowing people to pay for their passport in instalments when biometric passports are introduced.

Andy Burnham: There are currently no plans to introduce payment by instalments for biometric passports and there has been no pressure from customers to date to do so. In terms of the future fees strategy we will explore all aspects of charging including methods of fee collection but any changes will need to be focussed in terms of efficiency and minimising administrative costs.

British Crime Survey

Justine Greening: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate his Department has made of the number of crimes committed against under 16-year-olds which may have been omitted from the British Crime Survey due to it interviewing only those aged 16 years and over; and if he will make statement.

Tony McNulty: holding answer 7 September 2006
	Information on the extent and nature of personal victimisation of young people, including those aged 10 to 15, is published in the Home Office Statistical bulletin 20/05 Young people and crime: findings from the 2004 Offending, Crime and Justice Survey (Appendix D), and in Home Office Findings 246 The victimisation of young people: findings from the 2003 Crime and Justice Survey, copies of which are available from the Library and from the Home Office website at: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/offending_survey.html

Business Crime Group

Edward Davey: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what funding has been allocated to the British Retail Consortium to enable it to run the Action Against Business Crime Group beyond August 2006.

Tony McNulty: The business crime strategy for 2006-07 has not yet been finalised.

Cannabis

Tim Loughton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much has been spent on cannabis education programmes since the reclassification of cannabis; and if he will make a statement.

Vernon Coaker: The Government takes an integrated approach to educating young people on the harms of all illegal drugs, for example through the "Frank" campaign. However, since the reclassification of cannabis in 2004 a total of £1.5 million has been spent on specific cannabis communications.

Civil Servants (Overseas Visits)

Brian Jenkins: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what costs were incurred by his Department as a result of sending civil servants on overseas visits in each of the last 10 years.

John Reid: Overall expenditure figures for overseas travel and subsistence for Home Office civil servants for the years 1996 through 2006, where available, are recorded in the table.
	Travel undertaken on Home Office business is compliant with the Civil Service Management Code, the code is available to all staff who undertake an approved visit abroad.
	All figures are rounded to the nearest £1,000 and are presented by Financial Year.
	Figures for Financial Year 1996-97 are not available due to a change of accounting system.
	Figures for Financial Year 2005-06 are part year to date as at 25 January 2006.
	
		
			  Financial Year  £  Percentage change 
			 1997-98 3,209,000 — 
			 1998-99 2,321,000 -28 
			 1999-2000 3,878,000 67 
			 2000-01 2,982,000 -23 
			 2001-02 4,836,000 62 
			 2002-03 5,947,000 23 
			 2003-04 10,147,000 71 
			 2004-05 10,269,000 1.2 
			 2005-06 (to date) 7,765,000 —

Community Orders

Janet Dean: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment has been made of the pilot schemes on withholding benefits from persons who are in breach of a community order; and whether the results will be published.

Gerry Sutcliffe: The Home Office and DWP jointly undertook to pilot a scheme to apply a benefits sanction to offenders found to be in breach of their community sentence. The scheme was piloted in four probation areas—Derbyshire, Hertfordshire, West Midlands, and Teesside from October 2001. An evaluation report published in February 2004 concluded the policy had a small impact on compliance (1.8 per cent.) suggesting that for every 50 community sentences given, one less resulted in breach initiation as a result of the policy. The results of a further monitoring period proved inconclusive with regards to improvement of offender compliance. This is because the period coincided with other initiatives to improve compliance some of which gave significantly higher improvement than the benefits sanctions pilot.

Consultations

David Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many public consultations his Department undertook in 2005; and what the cost was  (a) in total and  (b) of each consultation.

Liam Byrne: Over the year 2005 the Home Office undertook 18 formal public consultations in order to inform the Department's policy development. Information on the cost of each consultation and the total cost of all consultations could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

Correspondence

Gerald Kaufman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will to reply to the letter to him dated 15 June from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, with regard to Mr. Faiz Mohamed Choudry.

John Reid: My Department has no record of receiving your previous correspondence dated 15 June 2005. However, on 10 August 2006 I wrote a full reply to the right hon. Member regarding Mr. Choudry's wife, Ms Nusrat Bibi.

Correspondence

Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average time taken to respond to hon. Members' correspondence to  (a) the immigration and nationality directorate (IND) and  (b) the IND removals correspondence team was in the last period for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

John Reid: As of the first of January the average response time for letters received from Members during 2005 on immigration and nationality directorate (IND) related matters was 36 working days in respect of correspondence on enforcement and removals matters and 24 days for correspondence on IND matters as a whole. The final figure for the average response time to letters received in 2005 will not be available until all those letters have been answered.
	Volumes of Members' letters on IND matters have grown considerably in recent years. In 2003 there were 24,700 letters and in 2004 35,800. The figure for 2005 will be reported shortly by the Cabinet Office in its annual report on performance on correspondence handling by all Government Departments. This will show a further substantial increase in letters for the IND.
	The enforcement and removals directorate (ERD) is the business area within the IND which receives the most letters. In early December the ERD introduced new ways of working which should result in significant improvements in its performance on handling Members' correspondence. This approach, which was already in place across the rest of the IND, draws a distinction between Members' letters which engage substantively with a case and those which are simply inquiring about case progress.

Correspondence

Adrian Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Torbay of 31 October 2005 regarding Dr. Winnie French.

Tony McNulty: I wrote to the hon. Member for Torbay on 24 April 2006.

Correspondence

Tony Lloyd: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his target time is for responding to hon. Members' letters; how long it took to respond to the letter from the hon. Member for Manchester, Central concerning Ruth Kelly (Home Office Reference Number W1000680) of  (a) 21 July 2005 and  (b) 16 September 2005; and if he will make a statement.

John Reid: The target for responding to hon. Members' letters is to send a reply within 20 working days. I responded to my hon. Friend's letters concerning Ruth Kelly of  (a) 21 July 2005 on 12 September 2005 and  (b) 16 September 2005 on 14 March 2006.
	Volumes of Members' letters on Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) matters have grown considerably in recent years. In 2003 there were 24,700 letters and in 2004 there were 35,800—a year on year increase of 45 per cent. In 2005 IND received 41,200 letters, an increase of a further 15 per cent.
	The Enforcement and Removals Directorate (ERD) is the business area within the IND which receives the most letters. In December 2005 the ERD introduced new ways of working which should result in significant improvements in its performance on handling Members' correspondence. This approach, which was already in place across the rest of the IND, draws a distinction between Members' letters which engage substantively with a case and those which are simply inquiring about progress.

Court Production Orders

Stephen Crabb: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  what his policy is on police refusing to obtain a court production order on the grounds  (a) of cost and  (b) that the victim has suffered small financial loss;
	(2)  whether there are Government guidelines on thresholds for the level of financial loss that a victim of crime needs to suffer before the police may pursue a court production order as part of their investigations.

Hazel Blears: It is an operational matter for the police to decide in each case whether to apply to a court for a production order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 or earlier legislation.
	The Home Office published a code of practice in 2003 which includes guidance to the police and other agencies on obtaining production orders. Under the legislation and the code, the police need to ensure that an application for an order is fully and clearly justified. There also must be reasonable grounds for believing that the material or information requested is likely to be of substantial value to a confiscation investigation or money laundering investigation. The level of financial loss to a victim is likely to be one of a number of factors that the police take into account when considering whether to apply for an order.
	The courts have powers to make compensation orders against convicted persons in respect of financial loss to victims.

Crime Statistics

Michael Wills: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents there have been of violent crime committed by people under 21 years in the Swindon area in each year since 1997.

Hazel Blears: The information requested is not collected centrally. It is not possible to identify the age of victim or suspect from the recorded crime statistics.

Crime Statistics

Ashok Kumar: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  how many people have been convicted of  (a) (i) racist and (ii) homophobic crimes and  (b) religiously aggravated crimes in each year since 1997 in (A) each region in England and (B) the Tees Valley;
	(2)  how many people have been convicted of crimes against  (a) Jews,  (b) Muslims,  (c) Hindus,  (d) Sikhs and  (e) Christians in (i) each region in England and (ii) the Tees Valley in each year since 1997.

Gerry Sutcliffe: Data from the court proceedings database held by the Office for Criminal Justice Reform on the number of persons convicted at all courts for offences relating to race, or religion, by region in England, are contained in the following table. It is not possible to separately identify the Tees Valley, as the data are not collected at this level of detail, therefore data for Cleveland police force area have been provided in lieu of Tees Valley. It is not possible to separately identify the specific religion, race, or gender orientation of the victim from the data as information about the victim is not collected.
	The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 Sections 4A, 29, 31, 32, and 47, came into effect in late 1998. There were no convictions pre 1999. Offences involving religious aggravation were separately identified in the data collected from the start of 2002.
	Statistics for 2005 court proceedings will be available in the autumn of 2006.
	Number of people found guilty at all courts, for offences relating to racism, and religious intolerance, in the north east region of England, 1999 to 2004(1)
	
		
			North East 
			  Offence Act  Offence description  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004 
			 Offences against the Person Act 1861 Sec. 20 as amended by Crime & Disorder Act 1998 Sec. 29(1 )(a),(2) Racially aggravated malicious wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm — — 1 2 1 1 
			 Offences against the Person Act 1861 Sec. 47 (in part) as amended by Crime & Disorder Act 1998 Sec. 29(1)(b),(2) Racially Aggravated Assaults occasioning actual bodily harm (malicious wounding) — 7 7 7 4 7 
			 Crime & Disorder Act 1998 Sec 29(1)(c) and (3) Racially Aggravated Common Assault 5 14 10 16 9 31 
			 Public Order Act 1986 Sec 4A as amended by Crime & Disorder Act 1998 Sec.31 (1)(b),(4) Racially Aggravated causing intentional harassment, alarm or distress — 11 22 19 5 11 
			 Protection from Harassment Act 1997 Sec.2 as amended by Crime & Disorder Act 1998 Sec.32(1)(a),(3) Racially Aggravated Offence of Harassment 3 2 6 1 3 1 
			 Protection from Harassment Act 1997 Sec.4 as amended by Crime & Disorder Act 1998 Sec 32(1)(b),(4) Racially Aggravated Putting people in fear of violence 3 2 2 2 2 — 
			 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 S20 as amended by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 S29(1)(a) & (2) Religiously aggravated malicious wounding of GBH — — — — — — 
			 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 S47 as amended by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 S29(1)(b) & (2) Religiously aggravated ABH — — — — — — 
			 Common Law & Crime and Disorder Act 1998 S29(1)(c) & (3) Religiously aggravated common assault — — — — — — 
			 Public Order Act 1986 Sec 4A as amended by Crime & Disorder Act 1998 Sec.31 (1)(b),(4) Religiously aggravated causing intentional harassment, alarm or distress — — — — 1 3 
			 Protection from Harassment Act 1997 S.2 as amended by Crime and Disorder Act 1998 S.32(1)(a) & (3) Religiously aggravated offence of harassment — — — — — — 
			 Protection from Harassment Act 1997 S.4 as amended by Crime and Disorder Act 1998 S.32(1)(b) & (4) Religiously aggravated putting people in fear of violence — — — — — — 
			 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 S20 as amended by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 S29(1Xa) & (2) Racially or religiously aggravated malicious wounding or GBH — — — — 1 1 
			 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 S47 as amended by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 S29(1)(b) & (2) Racially or religiously aggravated ABH — — — — — — 
			 Common Law & Crime and Disorder Act 1998 S29(1)(c) & (3) Racially or religiously aggravated common assault — — — — — 1 
			 Public Order Act 1986 Sec 4A as amended by Crime & Disorder Act 1998 Sec.31 (1)(b),(4) Racially or religiously aggravated causing intentional harassment, alarm or distress — — — 3 10 5 
			 Protection from Harassment Act 1997 S.2 as amended by Crime and Disorder Act 1998 S.32(1)(a)& (3) Racially or religiously aggravated offence of harassment — — — — 1 4 
			 Protection from Harassment Act 1997 S.4 as amended by Crime and Disorder Act 1998 S.32(1)(b)& (4) Racially or religiously aggravated putting people in fear of violence — — — — 1 — 
			 Criminal Damage Act 1970 Sec 1 (1) as added by Crime and Disorder Act 1998 S.30 (1) & (2) Racially aggravated other criminal damage (any amount) 3 5 9 13 11 18 
			 Criminal Damage Act 1971 Sec.1 (1) as added by Crime & Disorder Act 1998 Sec30(1) and (2) Religiously aggravated other criminal damage (any amount) — — — — — — 
			 Criminal Damage Act 1971 Sec.1(1) as added by Crime & Disorder Act 1998 Sec30(1) and (2) Racially or religiously aggravated other criminal damage (any amount) — — — — 1 2 
			 Public Order Act 1986 sec4 as amended by Crime & Disorder Act 1998 Sec 31(1)(a),(4) Racially Aggravated Fear or provocation of violence 8 9 12 16 18 21 
			 Public Order Act 1986 sec4 as amended by Crime & Disorder Act 1998 Sec 31(1)(a),(4) Religiously Aggravated Fear or provocation of violence — — — — — 1 
			 Public Order Act 1986 S.4 as amended by Crime and Disorder Act 1998 S.31(1)(a) and (4) Racially or religiously aggravated fear or provocation of violence — — — 1 2 1 
			 Public Order Act 1986 Sec 5 as amended by Crime & Disorder Act Sec 31 (1)(b),(5) Racially Aggravated Harassment, alarm or distress 1 13 29 38 79 82 
			 Public Order Act 1986 S.5 as amended by Crime and Disorder Act 1998 S.31 (1)(c) & (5) Religiously aggravated harassment, alarm or distress — — — — — — 
			 Public Order Act 1986 S.5 as amended by Crime and Disorder Act 1998 S.31(1)(c) & (5) Racially or religiously aggravated harassment, alarm or distress — — — — 11 6

Criminal Justice System (Employer Coalitions)

Henry Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the role of employer coalitions in the criminal justice system.

Gerry Sutcliffe: Developing on the proposal in the Government's Green Paper on Reducing Re-offending Through Skills and Employment, the National Employment Panel will be piloting the role of Job Developers in up to six major cities. Job Developers will be recruited in the Autumn and will work with the National Offender Management Service's Regional Offender Managers, and employment and training agencies, to identify suitable jobs for offenders. Getting offenders into sustainable employment will contribute to the Home Office aim of reducing re-offending.

Criminal Records Bureau

Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average time between the receipt of an application for a Criminal Records Bureau check and the full formal response was in each year from 2000 to 2005; and what the average time was for applications submitted since the beginning of 2006.

Joan Ryan: holding answer 18 September 2006
	I refer the hon. Member to my written answer of 12 June 2006,  Official Report, column 1025W. It is important to note that the Published Service Standards are measured from receipt of a fully and correctly completed application form to the despatch of the completed Disclosure.

Departmental Staff

Bob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff in his Department are paid on a performance-related basis.

John Reid: All staff in the Home Department are paid on a performance related basis. Staff must meet a minimum acceptable standard to receive a pay award. In Prison Service and non-agency Home Office, staff who achieve an exceptional standard will in addition receive a performance bonus. In UKPS, a corporate bonus is awarded to all staff depending on the targets achieved by their local office / HQ.

Deportation

Tony Baldry: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects Misha Goravoy, reference TA4581, who completed his prison sentence at Bullingdon Prison three months ago, to be deported.

Liam Byrne: It is not the policy of the Department to comment on the specific details of individual cases in the public domain. However, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to write to me with detailed representations on this matter and sets out the basis of his interest in this case I will consider these further.

Deportation

Michael Weir: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people from each Commonwealth country have been deported in each of the last five years.

Liam Byrne: Up until 2002, published information is available on the total number of persons against whom deportation action was initiated, in the Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom Command Paper. Published editions of this Command Paper and other information on immigration and asylum are available on the Home Office's Research Development and Statistics website at:
	http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html
	Information on deportation action was not available for 2003 due to data quality issues in this area. Information for 2004 has been published provisionally and may be revised in the 2005 Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom Command Paper publication. The Immigration and Nationality Directorate is currently putting in place new processes to improve its data collection systems for the future in this area.

Deportation

Peter Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 18 July to question 68798, what role his Department plays in setting the contractor's operating procedures for the treatment of foreign nationals being deported; how many such contractors there are; and if he will place in the Library the operating procedures for each contractor.

Liam Byrne: The contractor's operating procedures follow the guidance given in a series of detention service orders, issued by this Department to establish standards for immigration removal centres and escorting. Detention service orders are publicly available. In addition, we are in the process of developing escorting standards, which when published will also be publicly available. The contract for overseas escorting is held by G4S Justice Services Ltd. Two other companies are also approved to carry out overseas escorts. The operating procedures will be placed in the Library. However, it may be necessary to redact certain sections for the safety and security of detainees and staff.

Detention Estate Population Management Unit

Damian Green: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Detention Estate Population Management Unit plans to introduce a real time electronic database of those immigration offenders currently detained.

Liam Byrne: holding answer 18 September 2006
	The Detention Estate Population Management Unit (DEPMU) maintains a record of all detainees in the custody of the escorting contractor and main Removal Centres. These records are in the process of transferring to the main casework information database (CID) used by the Immigration Nationality Directorate caseholders.

Drug Classification

Paul Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions his Department had with  (a) outside bodies and experts and  (b) the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs before classifying (i) benzodiazepines, (ii) khat, (iii) ecstasy and (iv) magic mushrooms.

Paul Goggins: I will address each of the four substances in turn:
	 (i) Benzodiazepines
	 (a) The Home Office has not been in discussions with outside bodies other than occasional correspondence with members of the public and the lobby group "Beat the Benzos".
	 (b) Benzodiazepines were first brought under the controls of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 in 1986 following consultation with the Advisory Council on the Misuse of drugs (ACMD). The ACMD considered the classification of these drugs again in 2004 following representations from the "Beat the Benzos" group, but did not recommend any alteration to the classification.
	 (ii) Khat
	 (a) The Home Office commissioned two pieces of work on khat, by Turning Point and MACRO, in addition to receiving a number of pieces of correspondence from members of the public and community groups.
	 (b) The issue of Khat was referred to the ACMD in March 2005. They established a Khat working group to consider the issue in detail and report back to the full council. The council published its report and recommendations in January 2006 and their recommendations were accepted in full.
	 (iii) Ecstasy
	 (a) The Home Office as not been in discussions with any outside bodies about ecstasy.
	 (b) Ecstasy was placed in class A on the recommendation of the ACMD in 1977. In 1996 the ACMD convened a special meeting to discuss ecstasy following a number of deaths. They did not make any recommendation to change the classification.
	 (iv) Magic mushrooms
	 (a) The Home Office has not been in discussions with any outside bodies about magic mushrooms.
	 (b) The recent legal alteration to the position of magic mushrooms under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 was primarily a matter of legal clarification. We wrote to the ACMD, and asked for its views on our proposals, before the Drugs Bill was introduced. The ACMD agreed that a clarification of the legal position was necessary. In addition, they approved the associated regulations.

Drug Treatment Programmes

David Davis: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many inmates in prisons in England and Wales have  (a) successfully completed and  (b) started but failed to complete a drug treatment programme.

Fiona Mactaggart: Figures for 2004-05 showed that  (a) 4,902 prisoners successfully completed a drug treatment programme and  (b) 2,719 failed to complete—a completion rate of 64.3 per cent. During that year the target for successful completions was 60 per cent. The target for 2005-06 is 65 per cent. completion.

Electronic Borders

Andrew Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the Prime Minister's oral answer of 17 May 2006 to the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron),  Official Report, column 991, what his timescale is for introducing electronic borders; and what proposals he has to introduce identity cards for foreign nationals.

Liam Byrne: holding answer 23 May 2006
	The e-Borders programme is currently at the procurement stage. Implementation will take place thereafter with full e-Borders capability by 2014.
	As outlined in the Immigration Nationality Directorate Review of 2006, biometric identity management for foreign nationals will be introduced from 2008.

Extreme Pornography

Claire Curtis-Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the terms of reference were of the consultation on the possession of extreme pornography; and when he expects to publish a response to the consultation.

Fiona Mactaggart: The Consultation on the Possession of Extreme Pornographic Material, which we announced on 30 August, sought views on four options for creating a new offence of simple possession of extreme pornographic material containing explicit actual scenes or realistic depictions of:
	i) intercourse or oral sex with an animal;
	ii) sexual interference with a human corpse;
	iii) serious violence in a sexual context;
	iv) serious sexual violence.
	By "serious violence" we mean violence in respect of which a prosecution of grievous bodily harm (GBH) could be brought in England and Wales.
	One of the purposes of the consultation was to seek views on the categories and definitions which were outlined. The consultation period ended on 2 December 2005 and nearly 400 responses were received covering a wide spectrum of views. A Government response is due in March.

Foreign Nationals (UK Entry)

Paul Holmes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many foreign nationals entered the United Kingdom for the purpose of  (a) business,  (b) tourism and  (c) immigration in each year since 1997.

Liam Byrne: holding answer 24 July 2006
	The requested figures are in the table from the Home Office Statistical Bulletin "Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom" publication for the years 1997 to 2004. 2005 figures will be published on 22 August 2006 in the Command Paper "Control of Immigration: Statistics, United Kingdom 2005", and may be obtained from the Library of the House and from the Home Office website http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html

Foreign Prisoners

Jo Swinson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many foreign nationals convicted of serious offences and serving sentences in Scottish prisons have been  (a) recommended for deportation by a court,  (b) considered for deportation by his Department,  (c) deported by his Department and  (d) released without deportation at the end of their sentence since January 1999.

Liam Byrne: I refer the hon. Member to the most recent written ministerial statement of 23 May 2006,  Official Report, column 77WS. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary set out in this statement the eight priority areas for management action to deliver our long term agenda for change on radically improving the system for deporting foreign national prisoners. The sixth point deals specifically with the position in Scotland and Northern Ireland concerning foreign national prisoners. We shall update the House with our progress on this point shortly.

Foreign Prisoners

Anne Main: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the released foreign prisoners being sought by the police are on the Sex Offenders Register.

Joan Ryan: holding answer 9 May 2006
	My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has updated the House on this matter today in a written ministerial statement, and the Director General of the Immigration and Nationality Department (IND) has written to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee today on the number of cases where foreign national prisoners were released without proper deportation consideration. A copy of the letter has been placed in both Libraries.

Foreign Prisoners

John Spellar: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 18 April 2006,  Official Report, column 337W, on prisons, how many cases of  (a) foreign nationals and  (b) dual nationals have been referred to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate by the Prison Service in each of the last three years.

Liam Byrne: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and his predecessor have provided regular statistical updates to the House on the number of cases where foreign national prisoners were released without proper deportation consideration. In particular I refer my right hon. Friend to the most recent written ministerial statements of 15 and 23 May 2006. We will continue to update the House on the 1,019 cases as we work through these and urgently recheck the information we hold to ensure that any further information we provide to the House is as accurate as possible. We aim to provide a further update to the House by the end of June.

Foreign Prisoners

Diane Abbott: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps the Immigration and Nationality Directorate is taking to encourage the voluntary return of failed asylum applicants in detention for criminal offences.

Liam Byrne: The Voluntary Assisted Return and Reintegration Programme (VARRP) is the voluntary return programme for all failed asylum seekers and is currently open to convicted prisoners who are subject to control under the Immigration Act, and who have finished serving sentences of less than 12 months.

Foreign Prisoners

David Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners have been deported  (a) before their non-parole release date (NPD) and  (b) on, or shortly after, their NPD, in each of the last five years.

Fiona Mactaggart: Information in the form requested is not available without disproportionate cost.

Ian Missing

Simon Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the conclusion of the review commissioned by Essex Police and Essex Probation Services, on the case of Mr. Ian Missing, that their new enhanced measures of sharing information are in breach of national guidelines; and if he will make the necessary changes to national guidelines to address the situation.

Fiona Mactaggart: The guidance on information sharing referred to in the review accompanies the national standards for the probation service in the production of pre-sentence reports. It is for use by the Crown Prosecution Service. While it does not specify any police-held information that should be excluded, it only stipulates what must be included. Providing additional information, such as previous arrests, would not, technically, be in breach of agreed guidelines. As a result of the report the NPD will involve the national Police and the CPS in clarifying the guidance.

Identity Cards

John Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much funding his Department allocated to the London School of Economics for research into identity cards.

Joan Ryan: The Home Office has not provided funding to the London School of Economics for research into identity cards.

Identity Databases

Bob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of people in each ethnic group who will be registered on the national DNA database by January 2007.

Andy Burnham: The Home Office estimates are based on financial years, running April to March. The estimated numbers of people from England and Wales in each ethnic appearance group recorded on the National DNA Database by April 2007 are shown in the following table.
	
		
			  Estimate at April 2007 
			  Ethnic appearance  Number 
			 Afro-Caribbean 257,099 
			 Arab 36,728 
			 Asian 183,642 
			 Dark skinned European 55,093 
			 Oriental 22,037 
			 White skinned European 3,008,063 
			 Other 110,185

Immigration and Nationality Directorate

David Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many officers of the immigration and nationality directorate are stationed permanently at the port of Holyhead.

Liam Byrne: As all ferry services to Holyhead are from the Republic of Ireland (within the common travel area), no officers are based permanently there.

Immigration and Nationality Directorate

David Davis: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what extra resources have been recently allocated to the immigration and nationality directorate security and anti-corruption unit's data mining capability; and when those resources were allocated.

John Reid: We do not comment on operational security issues.

Immigration Officers

Damian Green: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessments are undertaken at point of entry to the UK to check the performance of  (a) assistant immigration officers,  (b) immigration officers and  (c) chief immigration officers; and if he will make a statement.

Liam Byrne: holding answer 18 September 2006
	Managers within the Immigration Service are required to complete performance and development reviews in conjunction with members of their team (including chief immigration officers, immigration officers and assistant immigration officers) in order to assess their competencies and performance. Jobholders are given the opportunity to comment on assessment of their performance and the process is completed by the countersigning manager or head of unit.

Immigration Removal Centres

Damian Green: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Walthamstow, of 16 June 2006,  Official Report, column 1423W, on immigration removal centres, what the average cost was, including overheads, of holding a  (a) man and  (b) woman at an immigration removal centre for one week in 2005-06.

Liam Byrne: The average estimated cost of holding a person in immigration removal centres, including overheads, for one week in 2005-06 was £1,230. It is not possible to distinguish costs between male, female and family detainees. Overheads include the costs of escorting, Immigration Nationality Directorate (IND) Detention Services staff and an allocation of IND and central Home Office overheads.
	This average cost calculation excludes the three centres operated by Her Majesty's Prison Service (HMPS), as those HMPS/National Offender Management Service overheads which are not relevant to removal centres are not readily discernible.

Immigration Removal Centres

Damian Green: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average cost was including overheads, of transporting  (a) a man and  (b) a woman between immigration removal centres.

Liam Byrne: The information is not held in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

Immigration Report 2004

Damian Green: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 4 September 2006,  Official Report, column 1841W, on the Review of Resourcing and Management of Immigration Final Report 2004, which of the 20 recommendations he considers to be no longer relevant.

Liam Byrne: holding answer 18 September 2006
	The report, "The Review of Resourcing and Management of Immigration Enforcement", made 20 recommendations.
	19 of the 20 recommendations have been actioned and one (no further change projects or reviews for at least one year) is no longer considered relevant.

Immigration Stamps

Justine Greening: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what processes are undertaken when transferring long-held immigration stamps.

Liam Byrne: holding answer 18 September 2006
	Individuals who request the transfer of long-held immigration stamps need to complete a form and pay a fee of £160 for a postal application or £500 for a same day premium service. In certain limited circumstances no fee is payable. Checks for previous grants of leave, proof of identity and any further inquiries are then made.
	Provided all criteria are met, IND will place a No Time Limit or Transfer of Conditions stamp into the individual's new passport.

Information Technology

Michael Weir: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which IT contracts awarded by his Department in each of the last five years have been abandoned; and what the value was in each case.

Liam Byrne: In the last five years there has been only one IT contract abandoned by the Home Department. This was cancelled in 2006 and was a contract for an Electronic Document Records Management (EDRM) system. The value of this contract was £32 000.

Inmate Information System

John Hemming: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what fields of data are stored in the Inmate Information System (IIS); for what reason information on deportation order recommendations were not stored in the IIS; and if he will ensure that such information is stored in the IIS in the future.

Liam Byrne: The Inmate Information System (IIS) records a large number of fields covering personal, offence and sentence details and disciplinary adjudications. It can identify a prisoner as a deportee but only when they are not also serving a custodial sentence. When IIS was introduced, the numbers of foreign national prisoners recommended for deportation were relatively small. IIS is to be replaced by the C-NOMIS system from 2007 and this will record recommendations for deportation.

Lebanese Nationals

Robert Walter: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Lebanese nationals are residing in the United Kingdom under tourist visas; and what provisions are in place for their future stay if their visas run out while hostilities in Lebanon continue.

Liam Byrne: holding answer 11 September 2006
	The available, provisional, information is that in the first six months of 2006 around 7,000 Lebanese nationals entered the United Kingdom as visitors. The maximum permissible stay for a visitor is six months.
	During the conflict, provision was made for Lebanese nationals to apply to remain on human rights grounds and none were forcibly removed. Those who wish to remain on humanitarian grounds despite the ceasefire of 2 August are still free to apply.

Licensing Act

Malcolm Moss: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much additional funding was made available to police forces specifically to tackle binge drinking and alcohol misuse at the time the Licensing Act 2003 came into force; what the timescale was for such funding; and what the take-up was by each police force, including the Metropolitan Police.

Hazel Blears: During the period from November to January a total of £2.6 million was made available to police forces and Trading Standards Authorities to tackle alcohol binge drinking and alcohol misuse. The breakdown for the individual forces is in the following table:
	
		
			  Force  Funding allocated( 1)  by PSU (£) 
			 Avon and Somerset 62,000 
			 Bedfordshire 30,000 
			 British Transport Police 30,000 
			 Cambridgeshire 30,000 
			 Cumbria 9,000 
			 Cheshire 23,000 
			 Cleveland 20,000 
			 Derbyshire 19,000 
			 Devon and Cornwall 33,000 
			 Dorset 9,000 
			 Durham 13,000 
			 Dyfed-Powys 19,000 
			 Essex 42,000 
			 Gloucestershire 20,000 
			 Greater Manchester 210,000 
			 Gwent 30,000 
			 Hampshire 51,000 
			 Hertfordshire 30,000 
			 Humberside 55,000 
			 Kent 41,000 
			 Lancashire 60,000 
			 Leicestershire 40,000 
			 Lincolnshire 23,000 
			 Merseyside 105,000 
			 Metropolitan Police Service 428,000 
			 Norfolk 9,000 
			 North Wales 23,000 
			 North Yorkshire 16,000 
			 Northamptonshire 34,000 
			 Northumbria 62,000 
			 Nottinghamshire 72,000 
			 South Wales 123,000 
			 South Yorkshire 36,000 
			 Staffordshire 33,000 
			 Suffolk 18,000 
			 Surrey 12,000 
			 Sussex 40,000 
			 Thames Valley 43,000 
			 Warwickshire 13,000 
			 West Mercia 15,000 
			 West Midlands 189,000 
			 West Yorkshire 94,000 
			 Wiltshire 6,000 
			 City of London 6,000 
			 Total (2)2,269,000 
			 (1 )Amount actually paid will depend on satisfactory data returns, etc. (2 )In addition to this, £350,000 was allocated to Trading Standards Authorities by PSU, making a total of £2,619,000. 
		
	
	The funding was allocated for activity between 14 November and 8 January.

Methylamphetamine

Bob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research he has  (a) commissioned and  (b) evaluated on the misuse of methylamphetamine.

Paul Goggins: The Government primarily takes their advice on controlled drugs from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD).
	The key evidence commissioned and considered by the Government on Methylamphetamine is the ACMD Methylamphetamine Report published in November 2005 and is available at www.drugs.gov.uk via the ACMD web-pages.
	We have not specifically commissioned any other work, although we do take a close interest in other reports that are published.

Motoring Offences (Women)

David Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the 10 most common motoring offences were for which women were  (a) prosecuted,  (b) convicted,  (c) fined and  (d) sent to prison in England and Wales in 2005-06, broken down by age group.

Gerry Sutcliffe: Information is not yet available.
	Since it takes several months for court proceedings data to be received by the Office for Criminal Justice Reform, 2005 motoring offences data will not be available until early in 2007. Data for 2006 will not be available until early in 2008.

Parliamentary Questions

Damian Green: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to Question 78420, on suicide attempts at Colnbrook Detention Centre, tabled by the hon. Member for Ashford for answer on 16 June 2006.

Liam Byrne: Between 1 January 2006 and 30 June 2006 there have been 461 cases where detainees at Colnbrook Removal Centre have been placed on Formal Self Harm At Risk procedures. 49 detainees required medical treatment during this period as a result of self-harm incidents. Detainee Custody Officers in all removal centres are trained to the standard delivered within the Prison Service to help identify and prevent suicide and self harm. They are also trained in accordance with their particular centre's own suicide and self-harm prevention strategy and procedures. Additionally, notices in various languages are displayed in all centres setting out that, where a detainee has a concern about a fellow detainee, this should be brought to the attention of a member of staff.

Parliamentary Questions

Damian Green: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to Question  (a) 75778 and  (b) 75781, on biometric cards, tabled by the hon. Member for Ashford for answer on 7 June 2006.

Joan Ryan: I replied to the hon. Member on 1 August, printed on 4 September 2006,  Official Report, column 1750W.

Passports (Loss and Theft)

Danny Alexander: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average cost per customer is of a call to report a lost or stolen passport.

Joan Ryan: holding answer 13 September 2006
	The Identity and Passport Service (IPS) do not accept reports of the loss or theft of a passport by telephone only on submission of the appropriate form. This is to guard against malicious reports of theft, and enables IPS to ensure the report originates from the genuine holder of the document.
	A caller to the IPS Adviceline will be advised on how to obtain the appropriate report form. Calls to the Adviceline are charged at a national rate.

Passports (Loss and Theft)

Danny Alexander: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints have been received over the last 12 months about the system for reporting lost or stolen passports; what steps he has taken in response to such complaints; and if he will make a statement.

Joan Ryan: holding answer 13 September 2006
	The Identity and Passport Service (IPS) received 34 complaints from 1 September 2005 to 31 August 2006 relating to lost, stolen and recovered passports. A range of issues are recorded within this category; the issue of the system for reporting lost or stolen passports represents a small proportion of this number.
	IPS procedure is to send a full response to each complaint received, with a consideration for reimbursement of expenses in accordance with IPS compensation policy, where appropriate. Any identified shortcomings are fed back to the relevant policy area to inform policy reviews and instigate change where necessary.

Police

Gary Streeter: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average number of hours was expended by police officers in investigating a burglary in 2005-06.

Tony McNulty: The information requested is not collected centrally.

Police

Bob Russell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will reimburse the Essex Police Authority for the full costs incurred by the authority in considering proposals for the merger of Essex police with other police forces.

Tony McNulty: holding answer 18 September 2006
	We are currently considering the claim from Essex police, and those received from other forces and authorities, and will respond as soon as possible.

Police Community Support Officers

Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police community support officers have been introduced in Coventry, South since the scheme began.

Hazel Blears: Information on the number of police community support officers (PCSOs) is not collected on a constituency basis. The following table sets out the number of PCSOs employed by West Midlands police up to September 2005. Information on PCSO numbers has only been collected at basic command unit (BCD) level since June 2005. In June 2005 there were 24 PCSOs deployed in the three operational command units covering the city of Coventry.
	
		
			  Police community support officers 
			  Strength as at  West Midlands 
			 September 2004 40 
			 March 2005 219 
			 September 2005 247

Police Community Support Officers

Paul Burstow: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to collect data routinely on assaults on police community services officers; and if he will make a statement.

Tony McNulty: holding answer 18 September 2006
	Assaults on police community support officers (PCSOs) are not identified separately by the Home Office in the recorded crime data. They are recorded under the more general category of common assault if no injury results. If injury is involved they are recorded under the appropriate category of Violence against the Person (defined in terms of sections of the Offences against the Person Act 1861).
	Within the police personnel data collection, assaults data are collected on behalf of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary's (HMIC's). Assaults on all police officers and police staff (including PCSOs) are published in HMIC's annual report.
	Assaults data from the police personnel data collection are not available by number of assaults per head of population.

Prison/Court Escort Service

Nicholas Clegg: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what penalties have been imposed on the companies responsible for prisoner escorts in each of the last five years; and what the reason for the penalty was in each case.

John Reid: Penalties for the two main performance measures of failing to deliver prisoners to court on time and escapes from contractors responsible for prisoner escorts are set out in the following table. This information dates from 29 August 2004, when the current contract started.
	Information on penalties imposed on contractors under the previous court escort contracts could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
	
		
			  Court escort contracts—details of penalties imposed 
			  £ 
			   29 August 2004 to  31 March 2005  1 April 2005 to 31March 2006 
			 Total penalties imposed on court escort contractors 1,194,843 2,170,424 
			 Penalties imposed for escapes from the custody of the contractors 222,500 326,000 
			 Penalties imposed for failing to deliver prisoners to court on time 656,225 1,060,505 
			 Other 316,118 783,919

Prisons

Henry Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effect of ear acupuncture in the high security prison estate; what plans he has to extend the availability of ear acupuncture in prisons; and if he will make a statement.

Fiona Mactaggart: There has been one study of the effect of ear acupuncture in the high security prison estate. The recent study undertaken in six high security prisons found positive effects associated with auricular acupuncture among prisoners, including reductions in worry, muscle tension, cravings and stress and improved psychological and physical well-being. There are presently no plans to extend the availability of ear acupuncture in prisons.

Prisons

Claire Curtis-Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to reduce overcrowding in prisons.

Fiona Mactaggart: The Government have introduced credible, intensive community sentences, which courts can tailor to individual offenders who might have otherwise receive ineffective short prison sentences. We have also alerted courts to the availability of electronic monitoring to support a curfew imposed as a condition of bail. Courts are being encouraged to use this option instead of a remand in custody in appropriate cases. We are increasing useable operational capacity in prisons by building additional places as part of an ongoing funded building programme, as well as carefully managing accommodation at existing prisons.

Prisons

Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  how many incidents of self-harm  (a) occurred and  (b) gave rise to the need for resuscitation in each prison in each of the last five years for which figures are available;
	(2)  how many self-inflicted deaths occurred during the first  (a) 24 hours and  (b) seven days in custody in each prison for each of the last five years;
	(3)  what percentage of self-inflicted deaths in prison occurred during the first  (a) 24 hours in custody,  (b) seven days,  (c) 14 days,  (d) 28 days,  (e) three months,  (f) six months and  (g) year in custody, broken down by (i) males and (ii) females in each of the last five years.

Fiona Mactaggart: The number of recorded incidents of self-harm that occurred in each prison in each of the last five calendar years is shown in table A. The table includes all incidents of self-harm, however serious. Some individuals are responsible for multiple incidents.
	The number of recorded resuscitations following self-harm incidents that occurred in each prison in each of the last five calendar years is shown in the table B.
	As prisoners often arrive in prison during the second half of the day, their first day in prison (Day 1) is typically less than 16 hours; some of the day is spent in the custody of PECS (Prisoner Escort and Custody Services).
	The number of apparent self-inflicted deaths that occurred on Day 1 in each of the last five calendar years, and where the deaths occurred, is shown in table C. The number of apparent self-inflicted deaths that occurred on a prisoner's first complete day in prison (Day 2), and the prisons in which the deaths occurred, is shown in the table D. (Please note that these figures do not include those in the 'Day 1' chart.) The number of apparent self-inflicted deaths that occurred during a prisoner's first week in prison (Days 1-7), and where the deaths occurred, is shown in the table E.
	The numbers and percentages of male prisoner self-inflicted deaths for each of the last five calendar years, broken down by days following reception, are shown in tables F.
	The numbers and percentages of female prisoner self-inflicted deaths for each of the last five calendar years, broken down by days following reception, are shown in tables G.
	The Government recognise that prisoners are particularly at risk of self-harm in their early period in custody, coping with issues of fear of imprisonment, detoxification and/or the impact of arrest on their family. Prisoners in early custody are therefore subject to a number of policies and practices designed to enhance their safety. These include health screening upon arrival, the use of peer supporters ('Insiders') to offer information and support to new prisoners, and First Night and Induction procedures.
	
		
			  Table A 
			  Prison  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005 
			 Acklington 13 14 15 28 47 77 
			 Albany 5 7 20 69 94 36 
			 Altcourse 110 143 93 168 166 112 
			 Ashfield 130 185 213 286 239 168 
			 Ashwell — — 1 2 7 9 
			 Askham Grange — — 1 1 — 2 
			 Aylesbury 116 12 36 22 81 112 
			 Bedford 46 69 96 120 123 109 
			 Belmarsh 63 109 73 74 123 87 
			 Birmingham 41 118 150 117 97 205 
			 Blakenhurst 97 200 237 463 322 151 
			 Blantyre House — — — — — — 
			 Blundeston 11 17 13 18 19 11 
			 Brinsford 47 25 122 70 23 67 
			 Bristol 134 208 155 95 156 186 
			 Brixton 83 74 128 119 69 86 
			 Brockhill 118 138 377 674 475 274 
			 Bronzefield — — — — 274 829 
			 Buckley Hall 8 22 215 765 1,082 596 
			 Bullingdon 67 34 28 48 37 34 
			 Bullwood Hall 49 9 17 659 1,065 1,577 
			 Camp Hill 20 11 93 76 26 31 
			 Canterbury 27 27 29 3 12 11 
			 Cardiff 16 37 41 56 99 68 
			 Castington 91 98 82 92 89 92 
			 Channings Wood 9 7 23 11 12 25 
			 Chelmsford 19 12 13 43 70 98 
			 Coldingley — 2 — — 5 — 
			 Cookham Wood 9 29 110 158 163 196 
			 Dartmoor 24 37 51 35 30 41 
			 Deerbolt 11 2 11 68 59 98 
			 Doncaster 161 125 265 318 370 334 
			 Dorchester 2 9 6 39 62 33 
			 Dovegate — 19 105 153 93 162 
			 Dover 1 2 17 43 40 34 
			 Downview — 1 57 184 71 349 
			 Drake Hall 4 — 30 18 23 42 
			 Durham 268 431 364 538 417 364 
			 East Sutton Park — — — — — — 
			 Eastwood Park 34 213 341 789 1,163 2,553 
			 Edmunds Hill 121 239 214 140 33 29 
			 Elmley 27 27 19 23 83 137 
			 Erlestoke 2 — 1 5 — 4 
			 Everthorpe 3 5 4 4 9 16 
			 Exeter 36 82 48 31 65 107 
			 Featherstone 9 11 10 32 18 12 
			 Feltham 11 51 48 104 161 144 
			 Ford 3 — 7 6 8 1 
			 Forest Bank 108 141 248 214 257 199 
			 Foston Hall 4 3 138 185 614 761 
			 Frankland 37 27 29 32 105 180 
			 Full Sutton 21 38 24 50 55 142 
			 Garth 33 6 4 14 55 50 
			 Gartree 1 2 7 16 11 11 
			 Glen Parva 72 74 71 197 217 228 
			 Gloucester 24 30 43 100 87 115 
			 Grendon 1 8 8 13 2 2 
			 Guys Marsh 5 5 5 34 17 13 
			 Haslar 4 5 5 5 6 2 
			 Hatfield 2 — 1 — — — 
			 Haverigg — — 3 9 3 11 
			 Hewell Grange — — — — — — 
			 High Down 77 90 79 112 193 114 
			 Highpoint 121 239 214 140 33 29 
			 Hindley 6 9 31 76 46 155 
			 Hollesley Bay 3 10 4 5 — — 
			 Holloway 245 604 907 958 1,184 1,383 
			 Holme House 30 92 94 61 96 65 
			 Hull 109 144 144 152 178 203 
			 Huntercombe 6 5 6 56 73 68 
			 Kingston 2 1 1 2 11 15 
			 Kirkham — 2 — 2 1 3 
			 Kirklevington — — — — — — 
			 Lancaster — 1 1 1 2 4 
			 Lancaster Farms 22 18 20 23 15 79 
			 Latchmere House — — — — — — 
			 Leeds 37 57 78 315 388 222 
			 Leicester 121 285 208 127 141 137 
			 Lewes 29 75 153 128 181 126 
			 Leyhill 1 — 2 — 1 2 
			 Lincoln 62 195 171 120 162 140 
			 Lindholme 7 3 6 9 13 16 
			 Littlehey 41 58 33 48 139 127 
			 Liverpool 40 78 309 374 339 276 
			 Long Lartin 1 9 30 15 12 15 
			 Low Newton 22 108 284 387 798 1,102 
			 Lowdham Grange 9 8 3 3 16 19 
			 Maidstone 13 20 11 9 13 24 
			 Manchester 60 252 193 324 255 238 
			 Moorland 90 106 103 188 100 149 
			 Morton Hall — 10 28 63 50 48 
			 Mount 16 7 12 13 26 29 
			 New Hall 124 329 357 1,689 1,125 1,021 
			 North Sea Camp — — 1 1 — 1 
			 Northallerton 32 53 19 28 56 16 
			 Norwich 109 161 199 214 290 343 
			 Nottingham 65 58 121 175 135 99 
			 Onley 1 76 141 195 86 86 
			 Oxford — — — — — — 
			 Parc 107 135 204 326 250 343 
			 Parkhurst 20 79 125 182 140 83 
			 Pentonville 212 159 153 186 104 232 
			 Peterborough — — — — — 933 
			 Portland 32 22 57 58 117 101 
			 Preston 115 92 88 146 100 123 
			 Ranby 9 6 9 11 7 8 
			 Reading 6 21 15 21 39 59 
			 Risley 8 5 23 34 31 46 
			 Rochester 33 77 1 9 58 18 
			 Rye Hill — 28 33 46 147 189 
			 Send 8 17 33 78 78 95 
			 Shepton Mallet 10 4 3 1 6 2 
			 Shrewsbury 39 46 35 38 67 65 
			 Stafford 19 14 13 40 75 79 
			 Standford Hill — — — 1 — 1 
			 Stocken 12 8 32 32 18 37 
			 Stoke Heath 20 28 10 168 250 189 
			 Styal 125 189 137 376 1,061 1,379 
			 Sudbury — 1 — 1 — 1 
			 Swaleside 70 48 32 29 34 12 
			 Swansea 17 20 32 62 33 62 
			 Swinfen Hall 14 17 38 69 107 92 
			 Thorn Cross — — — 1 3 — 
			 Usk\Prescoed — 1 2 1 1 1 
			 Verne — 1 4 9 3 8 
			 Wakefield 45 32 26 50 91 148 
			 Wandsworth 123 94 81 54 194 54 
			 Wayland 9 7 9 25 29 44 
			 Wealstun 1 — 4 15 10 35 
			 Weare 6 8 11 18 28 10 
			 Wellingborough 10 5 7 21 23 10 
			 Werrington 2 2 1 2 13 28 
			 Wetherby 8 20 11 19 60 67 
			 Whatton — — — 1 8 3 
			 Whitemoor 38 18 46 84 100 155 
			 Winchester 16 34 177 299 260 151 
			 Wolds 53 82 50 10 6 6 
			 Woodhill 3 18 2 18 63 120 
			 Wormwood Scrubs 40 112 112 190 127 108 
			 Wymott 1 — — 4 11 80 
		
	
	
		
			  Table B 
			  Prison  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005 
			 Acklington 1 — 1 — — — 
			 Albany 1 — — — — — 
			 Altcourse 2 — — 1 — — 
			 Ashfield — 1 — — — — 
			 Ashwell — — 1 — — — 
			 Aylesbury 3 1 — — — — 
			 Bedford 3 — — — — 2 
			 Belmarsh 1 2 — — — 2 
			 Birmingham — 4 3 1 1 — 
			 Blakenhurst 1 1 4 7 5 3 
			 Brinsford 1 — — — — 1 
			 Bristol 1 5 — 3 2 1 
			 Brixton — 2 2 1 2 — 
			 Brockhill 5 12 22 44 9 2 
			 Bronzefield — — — — 2 4 
			 Buckley Hall — — 3 4 3 1 
			 Bullingdon — — 1 4 — 1 
			 Bullwood Hall 2 1 1 4 18 10 
			 Camp Hill — — 1 — — — 
			 Canterbury — 1 2 — — — 
			 Cardiff — 3 — — — — 
			 Castington 3 1 3 2 1 — 
			 Channings Wood — 2 2 — — 1 
			 Chelmsford 2 2 2 1 2 1 
			 Cookham Wood — — 1 1 2 — 
			 Dartmoor 3 — 2 — 1 1 
			 Doncaster 1 2 5 — 1 — 
			 Dorchester — — 2 1 — — 
			 Dovegate — 1 — 1 — — 
			 Dover — 2 1 1 — — 
			 Downview — — 3 — 2 — 
			 Durham 4 4 3 4 5 — 
			 East Sutton Park — — — — — — 
			 Eastwood Park 6 7 3 41 10 14 
			 Edmunds Hill 3 2 3 1 1 — 
			 Elmley — 2 2 1 3 1 
			 Exeter — 1 1 — — 1 
			 Featherstone — — — — — — 
			 Feltham 1 — 1 — 1 1 
			 Ford — — — — — 1 
			 Forest Bank — 1 — — — — 
			 Foston Hall — — — 1 3 1 
			 Frankland 1 1 — 1 5 2 
			 Full Sutton 1 2 — — — — 
			 Garth — — — — — — 
			 Gartree — — — — — — 
			 Glen Parva 2 2 4 1 1 — 
			 Gloucester 3 — 1 2 — — 
			 Guys Marsh 2 — — — — — 
			 Haverigg — — 1 — — — 
			 High Down 1 3 1 2 2 1 
			 Highpoint 3 2 3 1 1 — 
			 Hindley — — 4 — — — 
			 Hollesley Bay — — — — — — 
			 Holloway 5 5 9 7 10 7 
			 Holme House 3 3 1 — — — 
			 Hull 6 — 5 4 2 1 
			 Huntercombe — 1 — — — — 
			 Kirkham — 1 — — — — 
			 Lancaster Farms — 1 — 1 — 1 
			 Leeds 1 3 3 9 — 1 
			 Leicester 2 5 — 1 1 — 
			 Lewes — 12 1 1 1 — 
			 Leyhill — — 1 — — — 
			 Lincoln 4 1 3 1 2 3 
			 Lindholme — — — — 1 — 
			 Littlehey — — — — — — 
			 Liverpool 2 7 5 1 3 3 
			 Long Lartin — — — — — 2 
			 Low Newton 1 6 5 1 7 9 
			 Lowdham Grange 1 — — — — — 
			 Maidstone — — — 1 1 — 
			 Manchester 2 4 2 2 1 1 
			 Moorland — 1 1 2 — — 
			 Morton Hall — — 1 — — — 
			 New Hall 2 3 1 3 6 — 
			 Northallerton 1 1 — — — — 
			 Norwich 1 3 2 3 1 2 
			 Nottingham 7 3 3 2 — 2 
			 Onley — — 1 — — — 
			 Parc 2 1 1 2 1 — 
			 Parkhurst 1 — 4 2 — — 
			 Pentonville 2 3 — 2 — 2 
			 Peterborough — — — — — 13 
			 Portland 1 — — — — 1 
			 Preston 7 1 2 3 4 4 
			 Ranby — — — 1 — — 
			 Reading — — — — 1 — 
			 Risley — — — — — 1 
			 Rochester — — — — — — 
			 Rye Hill — — — — 2 1 
			 Shrewsbury 3 — — — — — 
			 Stafford — — 1 1 — 2 
			 Stoke Heath 3 — — — 2 — 
			 Styal — 7 2 16 12 9 
			 Swaleside 2 1 — 1 — — 
			 Swansea 2 — 3 1 1 2 
			 Swinfen Hall — — — — — — 
			 Wakefield — — — — 1 — 
			 Wandsworth 3 1 3 1 2 2 
			 Wealstun — — — — — 1 
			 Wellingborough — — — — — — 
			 Werrington — — — — — — 
			 Wetherby — 1 1 2 — — 
			 Whitemoor 2 1 — 1 — 1 
			 Winchester 1 — — 2 1 1 
			 Wolds — — — — — — 
			 Woodhill 2 — 1 1 — — 
			 Wormwood Scrubs 1 2 3 4 3 2 
			 Wymott — — — — — 2 
		
	
	
		
			  Table C 
			  Prison  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005 
			 Exeter — — — — 1 — 
			 Hull — — — — 1 — 
			 Leicester 1 — — — — — 
			 Liverpool — — — — 1 — 
			 PECS — 1 — 1 — — 
			 Reading — 1 — — — — 
			 Wolds 1 — — — — — 
		
	
	
		
			  Table D 
			  Prison  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005 
			 Bedford — — 1 — — — 
			 Birmingham — 1 — —  — 
			 Bristol — — — — 1 — 
			 Brixton — 1 — — — 1 
			 Bullingdon — — 1 — — — 
			 Canterbury — — 1 — — — 
			 Durham 1 — — — — — 
			 Gloucester — — — — — 1 
			 Holme House — — 1 — — — 
			 Leeds 2 — — — — — 
			 Lewes 1 — — — — — 
			 Liverpool — — — — — 2 
			 New Hall — — 1 — — — 
			 Norwich 1 — — — — 1 
			 Nottingham — 1 — — 1 — 
			 Pentonville — — — — 1 1 
			 Preston 1 — — — 1 — 
			 Shrewsbury 1 — — 1 1 — 
			 Wandsworth 1 — — — — — 
			 Winchester 1 — — — — — 
			 Woodhill — — 1 — — 1 
		
	
	
		
			  Table E 
			  Prison  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005 
			 Altcourse — — — — — 1 
			 Bedford — — 2 — — — 
			 Belmarsh — — — 1 — — 
			 Birmingham — 1 — 1 — — 
			 Blakenhurst 1 — 1 1 2 — 
			 Brinsford 1 — — — — — 
			 Bristol — — — 1 1 — 
			 Brixton — 1 1 — — 1 
			 Brockhill 1 — — — — — 
			 Bullingdon — — 2 1 — — 
			 Canterbury — — 1 — — — 
			 Castington — — — 1 — — 
			 Doncaster 3 — — 1 — — 
			 Dorchester — — — — — 1 
			 Durham 1 — 1 — 1 1 
			 Eastwood Park — 1 1 — — — 
			 Elmley — — — 1 — — 
			 Exeter — — — — 1 — 
			 Gloucester — — — — 1 2 
			 Holloway — — 1 — — — 
			 Holme House — — 1 — — — 
			 Hull — — — 1 1 — 
			 Leeds 2 — 1 2 1 — 
			 Leicester 1 — — 1 2 1 
			 Lewes 1 2 — — — — 
			 Liverpool 1 — 1 — 1 2 
			 Low Newton — — — — 1 — 
			 Manchester — — — — 1 — 
			 New Hall — — 2 — — — 
			 Norwich 1 — — — — 1 
			 Nottingham 1 1 — — 3 — 
			 PECS — 1 — 1 — — 
			 Pentonville 1 — — — 2 2 
			 Preston 1 1 — 2 1 — 
			 Reading — 1 — — — — 
			 Shrewsbury 1 — — 1 3 — 
			 Styal — — 1 — — — 
			 Wandsworth 1 — — 1 — — 
			 Winchester 1 — — — — — 
			 Wolds 1 — — — — — 
			 Woodhill — — 3 1 — 1 
		
	
	
		
			  Table F 
			  Number 
			  Period in custody  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005 
			 Day of reception into custody (day 1) 2 1 0 1 3 0 
			 First complete day in prison custody (day 2) 9 3 5 1 5 7 
			 First week in custody (day 1 to day 7) 19 7 14 18 21 13 
			 First 14 days in custody (day 1 to day 14) 28 16 29 20 26 16 
			 First 28 days in custody (day 1 to day 28) 33 23 37 27 33 27 
			 First three months in custody (day 1 to day 91) 44 38 50 43 47 35 
			 First six months in custody (day 1 to day 182) 54 46 60 54 53 47 
			 First year in custody (day 1 to day 365) 61 52 61 59 66 57 
			 Total self-inflicted deaths for year 73 67 86 80 82 74 
		
	
	
		
			  Percentage 
			  Period in custody  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005 
			 Day of reception into custody (day 1) 3 1 0 1 4 0 
			 First complete day in prison custody (day 2) 12 4 6 1 6 9 
			 First week in custody (day 1 to day 7) 26 10 16 23 26 18 
			 First 14 days in custody (day 1 to day 14) 38 24 34 25 32 22 
			 First 28 days in custody (day 1 to day 28) 45 34 43 34 40 36 
			 First three months in custody (day 1 to day 91) 60 57 58 54 57 47 
			 First six months in custody (day 1 today 182) 74 69 70 68 65 64 
			 First year in custody (day 1 to day 365) 84 78 71 74 80 77 
		
	
	
		
			  Table G 
			  Number 
			  Period in custody  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005 
			 Day of reception into custody (day 1) 0 1 0 0 0 0 
			 First complete day in prison custody (day 2) 0 0 1 0 0 0 
			 First week in custody (day 1 to day 7) 1 2 5 0 1 0 
			 First 14 days in custody (day 1 to day 14) 2 2 5 2 4 0 
			 First 28 days in custody (day 1 to day 28) 2 3 7 4 5 0 
			 First three months in custody (day 1 to day 91) 5 4 7 6 9 2 
			 First six months in custody (day 1 to day 182) 7 4 7 7 9 2 
			 First year in custody (day 1 to day 365) 8 5 7 9 11 2 
			 Total self-inflicted deaths for year 8 6 9 14 13 4 
		
	
	
		
			  Percentage 
			  Period in custody  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005 
			 Day of reception into custody (day 1) 0 17 0 0 0 0 
			 First complete day in prison custody (day 2) 0 0 11 0 0 0 
			 First week in custody (day 1 to day 7) 13 33 56 0 8 0 
			 First 14 days in custody (day 1 to day 14) 25 33 56 14 31 0 
			 First 28 days in custody (day 1 to day 28) 25 50 78 29 38 0 
			 First three months in custody (day 1 to day 91) 63 67 78 43 69 50 
			 First six months in custody (day 1 to day 182) 88 67 78 50 69 50 
			 First year in custody (day 1 to day 365) 100 83 78 64 85 50

Prisons

Henry Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of self-harm incidents in each prison occurred amongst  (a) those on remand,  (b) convicted inmates and  (c) immigration detainees in each of the last 10 years.

Fiona Mactaggart: The information requested is provided in the following tables.
	
		
			  Table 1: Percentage of recorded self harm incidents involving remand and convicted-unsentenced prisoners in prison custody from 1996 to 2005, by prison 
			  Prison  Status  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003 
			 Altcourse Convicted — — 27 17 17 7 17 11 
			  Remand — — 29 51 25 36 27 17 
			 Ashfield Convicted — — — 50 12 15 7 4 
			  Remand — — — 0 36 32 10 29 
			 Bedford Convicted 22 18 25 31 41 21 20 18 
			  Remand 56 9 25 37 22 33 28 28 
			 Belmarsh Convicted 23 11 11 8 16 8 12 9 
			  Remand 38 47 43 33 33 48 39 28 
			 Birmingham Convicted 0 26 24 18 12 22 15 9 
			  Remand 50 32 37 14 29 27 30 29 
			 Blakenhurst Convicted 5 10 16 28 19 19 19 10 
			  Remand 54 33 14 17 45 28 19 21 
			 Brinsford Convicted 22 26 14 19 28 40 20 14 
			  Remand 22 47 39 40 38 20 39 34 
			 Bristol Convicted 0 17 15 11 21 25 37 21 
			  Remand 33 47 51 33 25 25 27 46 
			 Brixton Convicted 22 17 18 15 14 26 27 10 
			  Remand 39 30 30 27 27 16 20 11 
			 Brockhill Convicted — 6 29 19 27 18 20 38 
			  Remand — 75 42 38 28 22 30 27 
			 Bronzefield Convicted — — — — — — — — 
			  Remand — — — — — — — — 
			 Bullingdon Convicted 0 15 4 14 25 6 14 4 
			  Remand 43 23 28 38 18 21 21 7 
			 Camp Hill Convicted 0 13 17 0 0 0 0 0 
			  Remand 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			 Canterbury Convicted 22 29 15 23 4 15 4 0 
			  Remand 44 29 54 41 63 19 26 0 
			 Cardiff Convicted 0 25 23 20 25 24 23 23 
			  Remand 67 25 32 33 56 32 18 21 
			 Castington Convicted — 0 0 3 13 9 14 9 
			  Remand — 0 0 20 20 37 24 26 
			 Chelmsford Convicted 14 6 38 33 13 18 17 20 
			  Remand 43 53 38 33 56 27 33 27 
			 Cookham Wood Remand 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			 Dartmoor Remand 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			 Doncaster Convicted 20 33 9 10 20 12 9 18 
			  Remand 73 33 33 39 33 33 25 28 
			 Dorchester Convicted 20 50 23 35 50 33 29 19 
			  Remand 80 50 46 18 50 11 14 19 
			 Dovegate Remand — — — — — 0 0 0 
			 Dover Remand — — — — — 0 9 26 
			 Downview Remand 0 0 0 — — 0 0 0 
			 Durham Convicted 5 0 9 17 6 7 10 9 
			  Remand 52 43 46 24 24 12 16 15 
			 Eastwood Park Convicted 0 0 20 25 9 14 12 25 
			  Remand 25 67 0 0 12 19 6 24 
			 Edmunds Hill Convicted — — — — — — — 18 
			  Remand — — — — — — — 32 
			 Elmley Convicted 20 0 6 19 14 4 16 9 
			  Remand 0 60 56 33 28 29 16 35 
			 Exeter Convicted 0 11 37 17 14 22 23 16 
			  Remand 75 56 30 49 50 35 42 39 
			 Featherstone Remand 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			 Feltham Convicted 12 0 27 21 27 21 31 16 
			  Remand 29 0 34 32 18 34 25 28 
			 Forest Bank Convicted — — — — 19 10 17 14 
			  Remand — — — — 25 22 17 16 
			 Foston Hall Convicted — — 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			  Remand — — 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			 Frankland Remand 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			 Glen Parva Convicted 0 11 22 22 15 15 6 23 
			  Remand 100 53 33 35 38 7 21 27 
			 Gloucester Convicted 20 — 25 14 21 33 21 18 
			  Remand 20 — 25 71 46 40 26 21 
			 Haslar Remand — 100 100 100 75 100 40 80 
			 High Down Convicted 5 6 4 13 11 7 23 6 
			  Remand 50 0 21 34 15 21 35 15 
			 Highpoint Convicted 0 0 0 0 12 12 15 19 
			  Remand 0 0 0 0 16 20 18 14 
			 Hindley Convicted 25 14 0 0 20 0 3 3 
			  Remand 63 32 55 80 20 11 10 5 
			 Holloway Convicted 7 11 17 14 19 14 25 19 
			  Remand 57 36 37 27 26 22 24 32 
			 Holme House Convicted 11 11 9 33 13 0 0 27 
			  Remand 33 35 41 37 33 3 0 14 
			 Hull Convicted 7 0 15 10 10 13 17 11 
			  Remand 53 50 8 55 36 21 34 29 
			 Lancaster Farms Convicted 0 20 13 27 14 6 15 22 
			  Remand 0 0 42 36 27 44 30 52 
			 Leeds Convicted 18 27 9 29 14 12 5 10 
			  Remand 36 64 48 45 41 31 23 22 
			 Leicester Convicted 0 3 16 17 19 15 21 17 
			  Remand 50 42 59 51 33 33 23 24 
			 Lewes Convicted 33 0 17 29 11 17 21 18 
			  Remand 67 38 50 24 39 16 23 33 
			 Lincoln Convicted 0 33 8 15 20 27 19 26 
			  Remand 56 56 62 38 28 22 15 12 
			 Lindholme Remand 0 0 0 0 33 33 33 44 
			 Liverpool Convicted 7 0 23 5 8 18 9 6 
			  Remand 60 58 38 48 26 44 25 16 
			 Long Lartin Remand 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			 Low Newton Convicted — 15 33 31 35 18 25 5 
			  Remand — 46 33 38 40 9 14 7 
			 Manchester Convicted 25 18 22 20 12 7 13 12 
			  Remand 50 45 36 26 25 28 25 15 
			 New Hall Convicted 0 0 9 27 7 14 18 30 
			  Remand 100 50 24 26 21 12 14 18 
			 Northallerton Convicted 0 0 29 22 16 21 5 0 
			  Remand 100 100 42 52 56 40 16 0 
			 Norwich Convicted 50 5 10 12 18 9 13 9 
			  Remand 50 44 19 32 14 24 35 14 
			 Nottingham Convicted 0 13 28 29 14 17 18 21 
			  Remand 0 7 28 36 34 22 28 18 
			 Onley Convicted 0 — — — 0 4 17 2 
			  Remand 0 — — — 0 16 9 17 
			 Parc Convicted — 25 14 10 9 7 10 12 
			  Remand — 50 26 18 10 16 9 13 
			 Parkhurst Convicted 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 
			  Remand 0 0 0 0 5 4 6 3 
			 Pentonville Convicted 12 16 8 32 25 26 20 21 
			  Remand 58 50 43 35 30 35 28 29 
			 Peterborough Convicted — — — — — — — — 
			  Remand — — — — — — — — 
			 Preston Convicted 20 17 21 29 17 13 6 5 
			  Remand 60 47 47 20 33 21 13 10 
			 Reading Convicted 0 32 19 53 29 14 7 14 
			  Remand 33 38 56 20 0 14 20 19 
			 Risley Convicted 17 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 
			  Remand 29 29 11 25 0 0 0 0 
			 Rochester Convicted 25 7 30 10 0 15 0 0 
			  Remand 25 14 68 73 73 65 0 0 
			 Shrewsbury Convicted 0 — 26 29 18 26 19 24 
			  Remand 0 — 26 46 26 26 50 38 
			 Stoke Heath Convicted 0 0 0 0 6 7 0 3 
			  Remand 0 0 0 0 28 21 0 5 
			 Styal Convicted 0 0 0 17 9 16 20 40 
			  Remand 0 0 0 17 42 25 21 11 
			 Swansea Convicted 71 18 17 10 6 15 16 12 
			  Remand 14 45 56 62 59 25 25 17 
			 Wakefield Remand 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			 Wandsworth Convicted 4 6 15 13 26 19 21 11 
			  Remand 35 40 30 23 25 23 20 37 
			 Warren Hill Convicted — — — — — — — 0 
			  Remand — — — — — — — 25 
			 Wetherby Convicted — — 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			  Remand — — 0 0 0 50 0 0 
			 Winchester Convicted 0 0 33 11 56 15 7 13 
			  Remand 73 29 17 56 25 29 19 13 
			 Wolds Convicted 17 5 23 17 21 24 10 0 
			  Remand 50 55 43 40 21 18 38 0 
			 Woodhill Convicted 0 0 25 13 33 11 0 21 
			  Remand 100 75 25 25 33 32 50 7 
			 Wormwood Scrubs Convicted 4 9 10 15 11 11 11 6 
			  Remand 52 53 26 18 32 30 24 6 
		
	
	The following table details the actual numbers of self harm incidents.
	
		
			  Table 2: Number of recorded self harm incidents involving remand and convicted-unsentenced prisoners in prison custody from 1996 to 2005, by prison 
			  Prison  Status  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005 
			 Altcourse Convicted — — 38 13 19 10 16 18 19 16 
			  Remand — — 42 40 27 51 25 28 38 35 
			 Ashfield Convicted — — — 1 15 28 15 11 2 10 
			  Remand — — — — 47 58 20 78 22 47 
			 Bedford Convicted 2 4 8 11 19 15 19 22 29 10 
			  Remand 5 2 8 13 10 23 27 34 32 34 
			 Belmarsh Convicted 3 2 8 7 9 9 9 7 11 11 
			  Remand 5 9 33 28 19 53 29 21 44 29 
			 Birmingham Convicted — 5 10 5 5 26 22 10 10 30 
			  Remand 1 6 15 4 12 32 46 34 21 51 
			 Blakenhurst Convicted 2 5 9 27 12 38 45 46 50 14 
			  Remand 22 17 8 17 28 56 45 95 60 39 
			 Brinsford Convicted 2 5 4 8 13 10 24 10 5 14 
			  Remand 2 9 11 17 18 5 48 24 6 11 
			 Bristol Convicted — 6 6 8 29 52 57 20 18 34 
			  Remand 3 17 20 25 34 53 42 44 60 57 
			 Brixton Convicted 23 14 13 11 12 19 34 12 6 13 
			  Remand 41 24 22 20 23 12 26 13 15 24 
			 Brockhill Convicted — 1 7 17 32 25 75 259 120 69 
			  Remand — 12 10 35 33 30 112 183 183 92 
			 Bronzefield Convicted — — — — — — — — 20 113 
			  Remand — — — — — — — — 94 380 
			 Bullingdon Convicted — 2 1 5 17 2 4 2 3 4 
			  Remand 3 3 7 14 12 7 6 3 8 4 
			 Camp Hill Convicted — 1 1 — — — — — — — 
			  Remand 1 — — — — — — — — — 
			 Canterbury Convicted 2 2 2 5 1 4 1 — — — 
			  Remand 4 2 7 9 17 5 7 — — — 
			 Cardiff Convicted — 1 12 12 4 9 9 13 32 7 
			  Remand 4 1 17 20 9 12 7 12 19 24 
			 Castington Convicted — — — 2 11 8 12 8 15 20 
			  Remand — — — 12 17 34 20 24 19 28 
			 Chelmsford Convicted 1 1 10 4 2 2 2 8 10 13 
			  Remand 3 9 10 4 9 3 4 11 15 32 
			 Cookham Wood Remand — — — — — — — — — 3 
			 Dartmoor Remand — — — — — — — — 1 — 
			 Doncaster Convicted 3 1 34 25 33 15 24 58 48 76 
			  Remand 11 1 131 97 53 41 66 89 120 89 
			 Dorchester Convicted 1 1 3 6 1 3 2 7 6 3 
			  Remand 4 1 6 3 1 1 1 7 7 4 
			 Dovegate Remand — — — — — — — — 1 — 
			 Dover Remand — — — — — — 9 39 39 35 
			 Downview Remand — — — — — — — — — 63 
			 Durham Convicted 1 — 3 10 17 32 38 47 25 33 
			  Remand 11 6 16 14 65 53 59 82 55 123 
			 Eastwood Park Convicted — — 1 3 3 30 40 201 296 684 
			  Remand 1 2 — — 4 41 22 186 303 866 
			 Edmunds Hill Convicted — — — — — — — 28 42 — 
			  Remand — — — — — — — 50 58 — 
			 Elmley Convicted 2 — 1 4 4 1 3 2 9 13 
			  Remand — 6 10 7 8 8 3 8 32 61 
			 Exeter Convicted — 1 10 8 5 18 11 5 11 21 
			  Remand 9 5 8 23 18 29 20 12 19 31 
			 Featherstone Remand 1 — — — — — — — — — 
			 Feltham Convicted 7 — 15 7 3 11 15 16 32 27 
			  Remand 17 — 19 11 2 18 12 28 64 63 
			 Forest Bank Convicted — — — — 21 14 41 30 40 16 
			  Remand — — — — 27 31 41 35 46 64 
			 Foston Hall Convicted — — — — — — — — — 51 
			  Remand — — — — — — — — 2 167 
			 Frankland Remand — — — — — — — — — 1 
			 Glen Parva Convicted — 4 12 13 11 11 4 46 49 40 
			  Remand 1 19 18 21 28 5 15 54 55 34 
			 Gloucester Convicted 1 — 1 1 5 10 9 18 31 26 
			  Remand 1 — 1 5 11 12 11 21 24 24 
			 Haslar Remand — 2 5 2 3 5 2 4 3 2 
			 High Down Convicted 1 1 1 8 8 6 17 7 12 13 
			  Remand 10 — 5 21 11 19 26 17 49 46 
			 Highpoint Convicted — — — — 15 28 31 27 — — 
			  Remand — — — — 19 48 38 20 — — 
			 Hindley Convicted 2 3 — — 1 — 1 2 1 4 
			  Remand 5 7 6 4 1 1 3 4 4 12 
			 Holloway Convicted 1 9 17 17 46 83 229 181 198 100 
			  Remand 8 29 37 32 64 130 217 305 220 467 
			 Holme House Convicted 2 4 2 10 4 — — 16 8 8 
			  Remand 6 13 9 11 10 3 — 8 14 20 
			 Hull Convicted 1 — 2 2 11 19 24 17 19 11 
			  Remand 8 4 1 11 39 30 49 44 29 28 
			 Lancaster Farms Convicted — 1 4 6 3 1 3 5 2 10 
			  Remand — — 13 8 6 8 6 12 1 12 
			 Leeds Convicted 2 3 4 9 5 7 4 31 42 36 
			  Remand 4 7 21 14 15 18 18 71 81 45 
			 Leicester Convicted — 1 5 10 23 43 44 22 32 29 
			  Remand 4 13 19 30 39 93 48 31 50 45 
			 Lewes Convicted 1 — 1 6 3 13 32 23 24 17 
			  Remand 2 3 3 5 11 12 36 42 32 37 
			 Lincoln Convicted — 3 1 4 12 53 33 32 28 14 
			  Remand 5 5 8 10 17 42 26 15 31 26 
			 Lindholme Remand — — — — 2 1 2 4 3 — 
			 Liverpool Convicted 1 — 3 1 3 14 28 22 26 18 
			  Remand 9 7 5 10 10 34 78 61 54 32 
			 Long Lartin Remand — — — — — — — — 1 1 
			 Low Newton Convicted — 2 6 4 7 20 71 20 52 67 
			  Remand — 6 6 5 8 10 41 29 46 50 
			 Manchester Convicted 8 6 10 11 7 18 26 40 22 35 
			  Remand 16 15 16 14 15 70 49 49 33 41 
			 New Hall Convicted — — 3 33 8 46 65 510 250 101 
			  Remand 1 1 8 32 26 39 51 301 235 166 
			 Northallerton Convicted — — 7 5 5 11 1 — — — 
			  Remand 1 3 10 12 18 21 3 — — — 
			 Norwich Convicted 3 3 7 7 20 14 27 19 23 17 
			  Remand 3 24 14 19 15 38 71 29 34 22 
			 Nottingham Convicted — 2 9 17 9 10 22 37 32 15 
			  Remand — 1 9 21 22 13 34 31 30 10 
			 Onley Convicted — — — — — 3 24 4 — — 
			  Remand — — — — — 12 12 34 1 — 
			 Parc Convicted — 1 16 19 10 10 20 39 34 42 
			  Remand — 2 29 34 11 22 18 43 32 35 
			 Parkhurst Convicted — — — — — — — 2 — — 
			  Remand — — — — 1 3 8 6 15 17 
			 Pentonville Convicted 3 6 6 30 53 41 30 39 21 44 
			  Remand 15 19 32 33 62 55 43 54 25 79 
			 Peterborough Convicted — — — — — — — — — 80 
			  Remand — — — — — — — — — 237 
			 Preston Convicted 1 9 19 16 20 12 5 7 9 19 
			  Remand 3 25 43 11 39 19 10 14 5 35 
			 Reading Convicted — 12 7 8 2 3 1 3 3 11 
			  Remand 2 14 20 3 — 3 3 4 7 14 
			 Risley Convicted 4 — 1 1 — — — — — — 
			  Remand 7 2 2 4 — — — — — — 
			 Rochester Convicted 1 1 11 3 — 12 — — — — 
			  Remand 1 2 25 22 24 51 — — — — 
			 Shrewsbury Convicted — — 8 10 6 10 6 9 7 15 
			  Remand — — 8 16 9 10 16 14 21 11 
			 Stoke Heath Convicted — — — — 1 2 — 5 9 13 
			  Remand — — — — 5 6 — 8 24 31 
			 Styal Convicted — — — 1 6 28 24 149 117 210 
			  Remand — — — 1 27 44 25 42 127 272 
			 Swansea Convicted 5 2 3 2 1 3 5 7 4 12 
			  Remand 1 5 10 13 10 5 8 10 13 17 
			 Wakefield Remand — — — — — — — — 1 — 
			 Wandsworth Convicted 1 2 10 13 31 18 17 6 19 12 
			  Remand 8 14 20 22 30 22 16 20 70 14 
			 Warren Hill Convicted — — — — — — — — 1 — 
			  Remand — — — — — — — 2 3 7 
			 Wetherby Convicted — — — — — — — — — 4 
			  Remand — — — — — 10 — — — 15 
			 Winchester Convicted — — 2 1 9 5 13 38 28 36 
			  Remand 11 4 1 5 4 10 33 39 41 50 
			 Wolds Convicted 1 2 14 8 11 20 5 — — — 
			  Remand 3 24 26 19 11 15 19 — — — 
			 Woodhill Convicted — — 1 2 1 2 — 6 4 17 
			  Remand 4 3 1 4 1 6 1 2 8 43 
			 Wormwood Scrubs Convicted 1 4 8 10 4 12 12 11 15 9 
			  Remand 12 24 21 12 12 34 26 12 54 21 
		
	
	
		
			  Table 3: Number of self harm incidents involving prisoners with immigration detainee status in prison custody from 1996 to 2005, by prison 
			  Prison  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005 
			 Altcourse — — — 1 — — 2 — 1 — 
			 Ashfield — — — — — — — — — 1 
			 Bedford — — — — — — — 1 — 1 
			 Belmarsh — — 1 2 — 4 6 4 1 6 
			 Birmingham — — — — 3 2 1 3 — 4 
			 Blakenhurst — — — — — 1 1 1 — 1 
			 Brinsford — — — — — — 4 — 2 — 
			 Bristol — — — — — — 1 1 1 — 
			 Brixton 3 12 — 7 — 2 3 3 — — 
			 Brockhill — — — — — — — — — 5 
			 Buckley Hall — — — — — — — 1 — — 
			 Bullingdon — 1 — 1 — — 1 — — — 
			 Castington — — — — — — — — 2 3 
			 Chelmsford — — — — — — — — 2 — 
			 Doncaster — — — — — — — — 2 2 
			 Dorchester — — — — — — — — 1 — 
			 Dover — — — — — — 9 41 39 35 
			 Durham — — — — — — — 1 — 3 
			 Elmley — — — — — — — — 3 1 
			 Exeter — — — — 1 — — — — — 
			 Feltham — — — — — — 2 2 5 1 
			 Forest Bank — — — — — 1 1 3 3 — 
			 Glen Parva — — — — — 1 — 6 3 — 
			 Gloucester — — — — — — — — — 1 
			 Haslar — 2 5 2 4 5 2 4 3 2 
			 High Down — — — — — 2 — 2 4 22 
			 Holloway — 2 — — 2 1 7 5 1 1 
			 Hull — — — — — — — 3 — — 
			 Lancaster Farms — — — — — 1 2 1 — — 
			 Leeds — — — — — — — — 4 — 
			 Leicester — — — — — 1 — 2 — 3 
			 Lincoln — — — — — — — — 2 — 
			 Lindholme — — — — 2 1 2 4 3 — 
			 Littlehey — — — — — — — — — 1 
			 Liverpool — — — — — 7 21 8 3 — 
			 Long Lartin — — — — — — — — — 1 
			 Low Newton — — — — — — — — 1 — 
			 Manchester — 2 — — 2 1 1 1 2 — 
			 Mount, The — — — — — — — — 1 — 
			 New Hall — — — — — — — — — 2 
			 Norwich — — — — — — 7 3 3  
			 Nottingham — — — — — — — — 2 1 
			 Onley — — — — — — — 1 — — 
			 Pentonville 1 1 — — — — 1 3 1 2 
			 Reading — — — — — — — — 1 1 
			 Rochester 1 2 9 17 19 37 — — 1 — 
			 Stafford — — — — — — — — 1 — 
			 Styal — — — — — — 1 — — 1 
			 Wandsworth — — — 1 2 5 — 2 9 — 
			 Winchester — — — — — 1 8 5 4 6 
			 Wormwood Scrubs — — — — — 2 6 4 8 —

Prisons

Edward Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  how many inmates escaped from each prison in each of the last eight years; how many were recaptured within  (a) one hour,  (b) 12 hours,  (c) 24 hours,  (d) seven days,  (e) 28 days,  (f) six calendar months,  (g) one year and  (h) more than one year, broken down by category of prison from which they escaped; and how many in each category have not been recaptured;
	(2)  how many inmates have escaped from each category of prison in each of the last eight years; and how many in each category who escaped were  (a) British citizens and  (b) foreign nationals who had been recommended to the Home Secretary for deportation by the sentencing court on completion of their sentence.

Gerry Sutcliffe: A total of 114 prisoners have escaped from prisons in the last eight years, there have been no category A escapes and, as at 13 July 2006, 13 escapees remain unlawfully at large. Centrally available records indicate that none of the escapees were foreign nationals who had been recommended for deportation on completion of their sentence. One was an illegal immigrant. Time to recapture is not routinely recorded centrally and could be obtained only by examination of individual records.
	
		
			  Total escapes from all prisons in England and Wales 1998-99 to 2005-06 and numbers remaining unlawfully at large 
			  Financial years  Recaptured  Unlawfully at large  Total escapes  Number of British citizens 
			 1998-99 25 3 28 28 
			 1999-2000 29 1 30 28 
			 2000-01 11 0 11 10 
			 2001-02 12 3 15 15 
			 2002-03 4 1 5 2 
			 2003-04 6 4 10 8 
			 2004-05 11 1 12 12 
			 2005-06 2 1 3 3 
			 Total 100 14 114 106 
		
	
	
		
			  Escapes from category B prisons in England and Wales 1998-99 to 2005-06 and numbers remaining unlawfully at large 
			  Financial years  Recaptured  Unlawfully at large  Total escapes  Number of British citizens 
			 1998-99 0 0 0 0 
			 1999-2000 0 0 0 0 
			 2000-01 2 0 2 2 
			 2001-02 3 2 5 5 
			 2002-03 0 0 0 0 
			 2003-04 0 0 0 0 
			 2004-05 0 0 0 0 
			 2005-06 0 0 0 0 
			 Total 5 2 7 7 
		
	
	
		
			  Escapes from category C prisons in England and Wales 1998-99 to 2005-06 and numbers remaining unlawfully at large 
			  Financial years  Recaptured  Unlawfully at large  Total escapes  Number of British citizens 
			 1998-99 13 2 15 14 
			 1999-2000 11 1 12 11 
			 2000-01 4 0 4 4 
			 2001-02 7 0 7 7 
			 2002-03 3 0 3 3 
			 2003-04 3 2 5 4 
			 2004-05 10 0 10 10 
			 2005-06 0 1 1 1 
			 Total 51 6 57 54 
		
	
	
		
			  Escapes of unclassified prisoners (remands, women and young offenders) in England and Wales 1998-99 to 2005-06 and numbers remaining unlawfully at large 
			  Financial years  Recaptured  Unlawfully at large  Total escapes  Number of British citizens 
			 1998-99 12 1 13 12 
			 1999-2000 18 0 18 17 
			 2000-01 5 0 5 4 
			 2001-02 2 1 3 3 
			 2002-03 1 1 2 0 
			 2003-04 3 2 5 5 
			 2004-05 1 1 2 2 
			 2005-06 2 0 2 2 
			 Total 44 6 50 45

Prisons

Nicholas Clegg: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the capital value of each public sector prison.

John Reid: The capital values of public sector prisons are provided in the following table. The values are as at 31 March 2006 (subject to audit) and are valued in accordance with the Home Office accounting policy on the basis of depreciated replacement cost. Property on short-term lease is not capitalised and is not included. Staff residential accommodation is not included.
	
		
			  Establishment/Unit  Total (£) 
			 Acklington 43,048,350 
			 Albany 29,353,411 
			 Ashwell 20,558,353 
			 Askham Grange 9,387,837 
			 Aylesbury 56,763,582 
			 Bedford 24,026,648 
			 Belmarsh 156,787,544 
			 Birmingham 74,966,426 
			 Blakenhurst 89,552,346 
			 Blantyre House 7,205,074 
			 Blundestone 14,906,904 
			 Brinsford 39,657,548 
			 Bristol 20,241,621 
			 Brixton 23,838,640 
			 Brockhill 5,079,394 
			 Buckley Hall 46,876,541 
			 Bullingdon 74,172,827 
			 Bullwood Hall 11,042,629 
			 Camp Hill 22,653,830 
			 Canterbury 11,618,111 
			 Cardiff 43,126,816 
			 Castingdon 29,078,506 
			 Channings Wood 29,529,660 
			 Chelmsford 42,390,047 
			 Coldingly 28,728,768 
			 Cookham Wood 15,459,422 
			 Dartmoor 187,421 
			 Deerbolt 34,252,459 
			 Dorchester 7,010,850 
			 Dover 22,380,911 
			 Downview 36,862,224 
			 Drake Hall 16,238,917 
			 Durham 46,312,357 
			 East Sutton Park 7,188,431 
			 Eastwood Park 12,328,359 
			 Elmley 82,031,785 
			 Erlestoke 15,033,667 
			 Everthorpe 38,385,846 
			 Exeter 17,058,157 
			 Featherstone 24,554,370 
			 Feltham 98,410,928 
			 Ford 34,252,105 
			 Foston Hall 13,208,840 
			 Frankland 85,633,766 
			 Full Sutton 62,779,104 
			 Garth 54,363,673 
			 Gartree 35,462,658 
			 Glen Parva 48,595,223 
			 Gloucester 11,239,939 
			 Grendon 41,225,688 
			 Guys Marsh 41,026,166 
			 Haslar 9,772,428 
			 Haverigg 25,522,175 
			 Hewel Grange 9,901,555 
			 High Down 89,519,023 
			 Edmunds Hill 3,597,812 
			 Highpoint 54,000,972 
			 Hindley 40,974,029 
			 Hollesley Bay 31,621,724 
			 Holloway 61,573,322 
			 Holme House 80,429,976 
			 Hull 55,425,714 
			 Huntercombe 24,009,272 
			 Kingston 18,593,008 
			 Kirkham 31,243,968 
			 Kirklevington Grange 13,028,811 
			 Lancaster Farms 80,056,276 
			 Latchmere House 15,830,974 
			 Leeds 49,057,334 
			 Leicester 9,427,993 
			 Lewes 25,416,348 
			 Leyhill 30,923,949 
			 Lincoln 31,868,342 
			 Lindholme 77,200,040 
			 Littlehey 47,256,496 
			 Liverpool 54,818,604 
			 Long Lartin 48,554,728 
			 Low Newton 16,227,953 
			 Maidstone 37,031,057 
			 Manchester 66,074,885 
			 Moorland 105,848,827 
			 Morton Hall 21,424,780 
			 Mount (The) 64,024,958 
			 New Hall 36,247,843 
			 North Sea Camp 7,228,729 
			 Northallerton 8,146,420 
			 Norwich 38,134,418 
			 Nottingham 37,643,246 
			 Onley 35,252,886 
			 Parkhurst 36,385,058 
			 Pentonville 53,179,642 
			 Portland 21,851,273 
			 Preston 32,020,981 
			 Ranby 73,310,568 
			 Reading 12,519,482 
			 Risley 72,846,002 
			 Rochester 22,912,381 
			 Send 17,851,527 
			 Shepton Mallet 14,548,867 
			 Shrewsbury 9,311,040 
			 Stafford 19,237,916 
			 Standford Hill 30,886,076 
			 Stocken 47,186,692 
			 Stokeheath 29,383,001 
			 Styal 23,343,050 
			 Sudbury 23,249,163 
			 Swaleside 65,622,449 
			 Swansea 12,172,633 
			 Swinfen Hall 29,449,520 
			 Thorn Cross 29,696,490 
			 Usk 15,665,510 
			 Verne (The) 19,402,134 
			 Wakefield 59,573,146 
			 Wandsworth 57,601,077 
			 Warren Hill 1,581,023 
			 Wayland 48,436,149 
			 Wealstun 82,877,960 
			 Weare (The) 2,198,739 
			 Wellingborough 32,199,212 
			 Werrington 10,638,763 
			 Wetherby 29,242,337 
			 Whatton 32,716,270 
			 Whitemoor 81,856,754 
			 Winchester 31,303,011 
			 Woodhill 129,708,329 
			 Wormwood Scrubs 102,453,081 
			 Wymott 53,865,550 
			 Total 4,817,268,413

Prisons

Patrick McLoughlin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many absconders there were from Sudbury Open Prison in each of the last five years for which figures are available; what they were convicted of; what the length of their sentence was; how long they had actually served in Sudbury Open Prison prior to absconding; and if he will make a statement.

Gerry Sutcliffe: holding answer 13 September 2006
	The total number of absconds from Sudbury open prison for each of the last five financial years is given in the following table. Details about the sentence being served and the length of time left to serve could be obtained only by examination of individual prisoner records at a disproportionate cost
	
		
			  Number of absconds from Sudbury open prison for each of the last five financial years 
			  Financial Year  Total 
			 2001-02 81 
			 2002-03 68 
			 2003-04 75 
			 2004-05 77 
			 2005-06 76 
			 Overall Total 377

Probation Service

Rosie Cooper: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received on the planned changes to the structure and role of the Probation Service in West Lancashire.

Gerry Sutcliffe: In October 2005 we published a consultation document, "Restructuring Probation to Reduce Re-offending". 47 responses were received from interests in Lancashire, including the Lancashire Probation Board. All commented on the proposals in general rather than on issues specific to West Lancashire.

Public Order

Michael Wills: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 
	(1)  how many antisocial behaviour orders have been issued in the Wiltshire Police Authority area; how many have been breached; how many people received a custodial sentence for a breach; and how many people have been taken to court for a breach;
	(2)  how many breaches of antisocial behaviour orders have  (a) resulted in and  (b) not resulted in court action in Swindon since they were introduced.

Hazel Blears: The number of antisocial behaviour orders (ASBOs) issued, as reported to the Home Office, is currently available up to 30 June 2005. In the Wiltshire Criminal Justice System (CJS) Area which is co-terminous with the police force area there have been 26 ASBOs issued. Of these four show prohibitions imposed within the Swindon borough council area.
	ASBO breach data held centrally only cover breach proceedings where there has been a conviction and are currently available from one June 2000 to 31 December 2003 for ASBOs issued since 1 June 2000.
	During this period, within the Wiltshire criminal justice system area, notification has been received of three persons having breached their ASBO on one or more occasions. Two received a custodial sentence for the breach. Breach data are available at criminal justice system area level only and are therefore not available for Swindon.

Public Order

Anne Snelgrove: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many  (a) acceptable behaviour contracts,  (b) parenting contracts,  (c) parenting orders,  (d) full injunctions,  (e) evictions,  (f) dispersal orders and  (g) closure orders have been issued in each (i) constituency and (ii) local authority in England since 2001.

Hazel Blears: The data are not available in the form requested. However, for the last two years the Home Office Antisocial Behaviour Unit has carried out a survey of Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships in England and Community Safety Partnerships in Wales asking about their actions taken to tackle antisocial behaviour. From those who responded to the surveys the results are as follows:
	This is for the period 20 January 2004 to 30 September 2004. The crack house closure power was introduced in the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 and came into force on 20 January 2004.
	In relation to dispersal orders from a Home Office data collection exercise in July 2005, we estimate that between January 2004 and June 2005:
	809 areas were designated; and
	Police officers and community support officers dispersed 14,375 people from the 293 areas where data was available.

Re-offending Action Plan

Elfyn Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) which regional organisations will be involved in the delivery of individual pathways in Wales under the re-offending action plan;

Elfyn Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what organisations will be involved in the implementation of the NOMS plan for Wales; and what funds have been allocated to them for the implementation.

Fiona Mactaggart: A Pathfinder Project was commissioned by the Home Office with the agreement of the Welsh Assembly Government to examine ways of delivering a reducing re-offending strategy within the specific Welsh context. The outcome has led to the joint launch of Joining Together in Wales: an Adult and Young People's Strategy to Reduce Re-offending on 1 February by the Welsh Assembly Government and Home Office Ministers. The strategy identifies the issues that need to be addressed and forms the basis of a consultation to develop a reducing re-offending action plan for Wales.
	Following the outcome of the consultation, there will be a joint action plan to reflect the roles and responsibilities of the Welsh Assembly Government, the National Offender Management Service and other key stakeholders in Wales.

Seat Belts

Barry Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many vehicle occupants have been fined for non-wearing of seat belts in each of the last 10 years.

Tony McNulty: holding answer 18 September 2006
	Available information on court imposed fines taken from the Court Proceedings Database held by the Office for Criminal Justice Reform, from 1995 to 2004 (latest available), is given in the following table. As the majority of seat belt offences are dealt with by the issue of a fixed penalty notice these are also included.
	2005 data will be available early in 2007.
	
		
			  Driving or riding in a motor vehicle while not wearing a seat belt( 1,)  England and Wales, 1995-2004 
			   Total number of court imposed fines( 2)  Total number of fixed penalties  Total dealt with 
			 1995 5,192 126,251 131,443 
			 1996 5,309 154,345 159,654 
			 1997 5,027 175,334 180,361 
			 1998 5,207 193,879 199,086 
			 1999 4,144 180,698 184,842 
			 2000 3,227 155,301 158,528 
			 2001 2,792 144,391 147,183 
			 2002 2,406 126,419 128,825 
			 2003 2,651 145,589 148,240 
			 2004 2,960 201,914 204,874 
			 (1 )Offences under sections 14(3), 15(2) and 15(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1988.  (2) Includes cases where fixed penalty notices were originally issued but not paid and subsequently referred to court.  Note: Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their limitations are taken into account when those data are used.

Skilled Migrant Workers

Stephen Pound: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce a transitional period for skilled and highly skilled migrant workers affected by the February implementation of the change in the minimum qualifying period for settlement.

Liam Byrne: The Government looked closely at the merits of introducing a transitional period for those affected by the increase in the minimum qualifying period for settlement. In deciding not to introduce a transitional period, consideration was given to the following factors: this change does not prevent anyone from doing anything that they are currently doing; it does not limit anyone's time with any employer or reduce their stay in the United Kingdom—if they meet the conditions necessary to be in the UK under the Work Permit or Highly Skilled Migrants Programmes they will be granted an extra year's leave before settlement. If they do not meet these conditions they would in any case not have qualified for settlement at four years. To introduce a transitional period for those who arrived when the qualifying period was four years would mean that a desirable policy would not take effect until 2011.

Skilled Migrant Workers

Stephen Pound: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with representatives of  (a) Indian and  (b) Chinese skilled and highly skilled migrant workers affected by the change in the minimum qualifying period for settlement.

Liam Byrne: The change in the minimum qualifying period for settlement affects all those coming to the UK for employment including work permit holders and those entering under the Highly Skilled Migrants Programme. Our discussion of the change has, therefore, reflected this and has been principally with organisations that represent employees irrespective of their nationality.

Small Change Big Difference Campaign

Anne Milton: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department and its agencies have taken following the launch of the Government's Small Change Big Difference Campaign.

Liam Byrne: The Home Office with its Executive Agencies has already put in place a range of measures to promote staff well-being. These include initiatives on healthy diet and nutrition, physical exercise, mental health and well-being.

Snares

Barry Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what action he is taking to discourage the use of snares for catching birds and small mammals.

Barry Gardiner: holding answer 18 September 2006
	I have been asked to reply.
	The use of any snare to catch birds is prohibited under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
	The Government are committed to working to make more humane the legal use of snares to catch certain mammals. On 18 October 2005 Defra published an independent working group's report on snares together with DEFRA's "Snares Action Plan" and "Code of Good Practice on the use of Snares in Fox and Rabbit Control in England". These are available on the Defra website: http://www.defra.gov.uk/WILDLIFE-COUNTRY SIDE/vertebrates/snares/.

Statutory Instruments

John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the statutory instruments introduced by his Department since 6 May 2005.

John Reid: Please find the statutory instruments introduced by the Home Office since 6 May 2005 up to and including 27 January 2006 listed as follows. Full texts can be found on the OPSI website at www.opsi.gov.uk
	The Displaced Persons (Temporary Protection) Regulations 2005 (No. 1379)
	The Police Pensions (Part-time Service) Regulations 2005 (No. 1439)
	The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (Commencement No. 1, Transitional and Transitory Provisions) Order 2005 (No. 1521 (C.66))
	The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (Designated Area) Order 2005 (No. 1537)
	The Road Traffic Act 1988 (Retention and Disposal of Seized Motor Vehicles) Regulations 2005 (No. 1606)
	The Drugs Act 2005 (Commencement No. 1) Order 2005 (No. 1650 (C. 68))
	The Misuse of Drugs (Designation) (Amendment) Order 2005 (No. 1652)
	The Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2005 (No. 1653)
	The Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 (Commencement No. 1) Order 2005 (No. 1675 (C. 69))
	The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (Commencement No. 2) Order 2005 (No. 1705 (C. 71))
	The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (Responsible Authorities) Order 2005 (No. 1789)
	The Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Commencement No. 10 and Saving Provisions) Order 2005 (No. 1817 (C. 76))
	The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (Commencement No. 3) Order 2005 (No. 1821 (C. 77))
	The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (Commencement No. 2) Order 2005 (No. 2026 (C. 86))
	The Extradition Act 2003 (Amendment to Designations) ((No.2) Order 2005 (No. 2036)
	The Remand in Custody (Effect of Concurrent and Consecutive Sentences of Imprisonment) Rules 2005 (No. 2054)
	The Private Security Industry (Licences) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2005 (No. 2118)
	The Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Commencement No. eight and Transitional and Saving Provisions)
	Order 2005 (Supplementary Provisions) Order 2005 (No. 2122)
	The Police (Amendment) Regulations 2005 (No. 2834)
	The Drugs Act 2005 (Commencement No. 2) Order 2005 (No. 2223 (C. 93))
	The Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 (Amendment) Order 2005 (No. 2240)
	The Working Time Regulations 1998 (Amendment) Order 2005 (No. 2241)
	The Private Security Industry Act 2001 (Designated Activities) (No. 3) Regulations 2005 (No. 2251)
	The Immigration (Leave to Remain) (Prescribed Forms and Procedures) (No. 2) Regulations 2005 (No. 2358)
	The Accession (Immigration and Worker Registration) (Amendment) Regulations 2005 (No. 2400)
	The Immigration (Eligibility for Assistance) (Scotland and Northern Ireland) (Revocation) Regulations 2005 (No. 2412)
	The Police (Retention and Disposal of Motor Vehicles) (Amendment) Regulations 2005 (No. 2702)
	The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Commencement No. 10) Order 2005 (No. 2782 (C. 114))
	The British Nationality (General) (Amendment) Regulations 2005 (No. 2785)
	The Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Mandatory Life Sentences: Appeals in Transitional Cases) Order 2005 (No. 2798)
	The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (Commencement No. 4) Order 2005 (No. 2848 (C. 119))
	The Misuse of Drugs and the Misuse of Drugs (Supply to Addicts) (Amendment) Regulations 2005 (No. 2864)
	The Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2005 (No. 2892)
	The Immigration (procedure for Formation of Civil Partnerships) Regulations 2005 (No. 2917)
	The Drugs Act 2005 (Commencement No. 3) Order 2005 (No. 3053 (C. 128))
	The Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (Commencement No. 15) Order 2005 (No. 3054 (C. 129))
	The Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Commencement No. 11) Order 2005 (No. 3055 (C. 130))
	The National Police Records (Recordable Offences) (Amendment) Regulations 2005 (No. 3106)
	The Immigration (Provision of Physical Data) (Amendment) Regulations 2005 (No. 3127)
	The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (Commencement No. 3) Order 2005 (No. 3136 (C. 135))
	The Forensic Science Service Trading Fund (Revocation) Order 2005 (No. 3138)
	The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2005 (No. 3178)(1)
	The Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 (Enforcement of Overseas Forfeiture Orders) Order 2005 (No. 3180)(1)
	The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (External Requests and Orders) Order 2005 (No. 3181)(1)
	The Sports Grounds and Sporting Events (Designation) Order 2005 (No. 3204)
	The Asylum (Designated States) (No. 2) Order 2005 (No. 3306)
	(L) The Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation (Transfer of Property, Rights and Liabilities) Order 2005 (No. 3308)
	The Immigration (Designation of Travel Bans) (Amendment) Order 2005 (No. 3310)
	The Retention of Communications Data (Further Extension of Initial Period) Order 2005 (No. 3335)
	The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (Responsible Authorities) (No. 2) Order 2005 (No. 3343)
	The Firearms (Amendment) Rules 2005 (No. 3344)
	The Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2005 (No. 3372)
	The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (Powers of Arrest) (Consequential Amendments) Order 2005 (No. 3389)
	The Victims of Violent Intentional Crime (Arrangements for Compensation) (European Communities) Regulations 2005 (No. 3396)
	The Prison (Amendment) (No. 2) Rules 2005 (No. 3437)
	The Young Offender Institution (Amendment) (No. 2) Rules 2005 (No. 3438)
	The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (Commencement No. four and Transitory Provision) Order 2005 (No. 3495 (C. 146))
	The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (Amendment) Order 2005 (No. 3496)
	The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) Order 2005 (No. 3503)
	DRAFT Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and Money Laundering Regulations 2003 (Amendment) Order 2005(2)
	The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (References to Financial Investigators) (Amendment) Order 2006 (No. 57)
	The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (Delegation under section 43) Order 2006 (No. 100)
	The Police Act 1996 (Local Policing Summaries) Order 2006 (No. 122)
	DRAFT Community Order (Review by Specified Courts in Liverpool and Salford) Order 2006
	(L) DRAFT Charities (Cheadle Royal Hospital, Manchester) Order 2006
	(1) Orders in Council.
	(2) Order in Council laid as a 2005 Order, to be made as a 2006 Order.
	Local instruments.

Stolen Property (Recovery Costs)

James Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the cost to police forces of removing the charge to victims of car theft for the return of their vehicle.

Hazel Blears: No such estimate has been made. We believe it would be in the order of several million pounds.

Terrorism Act

Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000; how many were  (a) held for the maximum 14 days,  (b) charged and  (c) convicted; and in how many cases trials are pending.

Tony McNulty: Statistics compiled from police records show that between 11 September 2001 and 31 March 2006 997 people were arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000 (TACT). Of these people, 154 were charged with offences under TACT and 79 of these were also charged with offences under other legislation. A further 175 individuals were charged under different legislation. A total of 25 people were convicted under TACT during this period.
	The maximum period of detention pre-charge was extended to 14 days with effect from 20 January 2004. Our records show that from 20 January 2004 to 31 March 2006, which are the most recent statistics available, 14 people have been held for 13-14 days.
	The Home Office does not publish statistics on the number of cases awaiting trial.

Vandalism

David Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the acts of vandalism which have been perpetrated  (a) inside and  (b) on the outside of his Department's buildings in the last 12 months.

John Reid: The Department does not hold central records of the acts of vandalism perpetrated against its buildings and to retrieve this information would be at disproportionate cost. Many of the Departments buildings are covered by CCTV and other measures are used to reduce vandalism and the effects of vandalism upon the estate.

Work Permits

Paul Burstow: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many work permits were issued to individuals working in  (a) health care and  (b) social care in 2005.

Liam Byrne: In 2005, 40,296 work permits were approved for posts in the Health and Medical sector for overseas nationals both in the UK and overseas. All successful applicants have to apply separately for a visa or leave to remain. The Health and Medical sector includes both health care and social care occupations. Work Permits (UK) does not record separate information on Health and Care. These figures include all work permits approved for the Health and Medical sector, and therefore include both medical and non-medical posts. The figures quoted are not provided under National Statistics protocols and have been derived from local management information and are therefore provisional and subject to change.

Young Offenders

David Davis: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have left a young offenders institution without  (a) employment and  (b) accommodation in each of the past eight years.

Fiona Mactaggart: The information is as follows:
	 (a) It is a disproportionate cost to separate Employment from Education and Training outcomes for prisoners released prior to April 2005.
	Education Training and Employment (ETE) outcomes also include those who attended Freshstart appointments at Jobcentre Plus.
	Freshstart is the initiative whereby prisoners who do not have a job or training place to go to on release are linked into employment, training and benefits advice and support immediately after release.
	Information on the number of those leaving young offender institutions without ETE outcomes has been collected since 2002 and is given in the following table:
	
		
			  Table (a) 
			   2002-03  2003-04  2004-05 
			 Discharges 12,206 11,974 12,611 
			 Number discharged with no recorded education, training or employment place 9,631 7,710 6,853 
			 Percentage discharged with no recorded education, training or employment place 79 64 54 
		
	
	(b) Information on the numbers leaving young offender institutions with no accommodation is available from 2003 onwards, and is given in the following table:
	
		
			  Table (b) 
			   2003-04  2004-05 
			 Discharges 11,974 12,611 
			 Number discharged with no recorded accommodation 2,664 1,673 
			 Percentage discharged with no recorded accommodation 22 13